Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UTAH AT THE BRINK:UTAH'S FUTURE AND
THE ROLE OF RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
A case statement by Utah State University and the University of Utah
Fellow Utahns:
The future of our great state is at risk. Around the world—in the U.S., Europe, and
Asia—local governments are aggressively preparing for coming changes in the global
economy. They recognize and value the very real links between scientific discovery,
technology development, and economic growth.
R&D expenditures in the United States are at an all-time high (over $125 billion in
FY2003). Our sister states—Arizona, Washington, Colorado and others—are already
committing resources to ensure they vigorously compete for Federal research and
development funds. Why? Because new technology-based businesses and job
opportunities are the future of a thriving economy—a future that will only result with
energetic research environments.
Utah is at the brink of an economic decision. We must find the means
to build bridges to a prosperous future—significantly increasing our
capacity to compete in the new knowledge economy right now—or we
will be left behind.
Those are challenging words, but they reflect the concern and commitment of Utah’s two
public research universities. We pledge our willingness to join with others throughout
this great state to promote technology-based economic development right here in Utah.
By investing in our university research infrastructure, additional research funding will be
received, more technologies will be developed, and Utah’s economy will be energized
with new companies that promise a bright future for our children and grandchildren.
We all share a common goal to improve the lives and well-being of every Utahn. Let us
begin now to explore every option and consider every way in which knowledge and dis-
covery can partner with business and government. As Utahns, we stand at a brink; let us
move forward together.
Sincerely,
Kermit L. Hall Michael K. Young President President
Utah State University The University of Utah
UTAH AT THE BRINK: Table of Contents
Executive Summary......................................................................................................i
Chapter 1: Utah’s Investments in Infrastructure................................................1
Chapter 2: Utah Public Issues..................................................................................7
Chapter 3: Utah’s High-Tech History ....................................................................13
Chapter 4: Utah Support for Technology and Research Universities ........23
Chapter 5: Benefits of Research Universities ...................................................31
Chapter 6: National Support for Research Universities.................................43
Chapter 7: State Investments in Research and Technology .........................57
Chapter 8: Utah’s Research University Tradition .............................................77
Chapter 9: The Impact of Utah’s Research Universities ................................83
Conclusion: At the Brink of Utah’s Economic Future.....................................95
Case statement by: Anna Brunson McEntire, Vice President for Research Office, Utah State University
Special Thanks to:John Devilbiss, Fred Esplin, Brent Miller, Russ Price, Tim Vitale, Rachel von Niederhausern, Garin Summers and Mark Woodland
i
oday as never before, Utah stands at the brink. The very future of our state—its eco-
nomic growth and the prosperity of its citizens—hangs in the balance. Competition for
good jobs and scarce resources assails us from every region of the globe. Aggressive
postures on research and development are the norm from North Carolina to Arizona. And
the struggle for knowledge funding is already hinting at a world of haves and have-nots.
These are factors that will only become more challenging in the months and years ahead.
A window of opportunity exists for us to meet this challenge, to tip the scale
in favor of Utah and its citizens. To do so, we must commit to investments that pre-
pare Utahns to participate in a knowledge-based economy.
A Reminder of What We’ve Accomplished
Utah has an enviable legacy of achievement in the face of daunting odds. To tame an
arid desert we tapped the Colorado River (Central Utah Project, 1919). To connect a
growing population we built a powerful network of state and national highways (1957,
1996). To welcome the world, we worked for thirty years
to host the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. These invest-
ments required vision and sacrifice, but they set in motion
patterns of action that benefit the lives of every Utahn
even today.
Indeed, there are some who might well claim that Utahns
can accomplish anything once they put their minds to it.
And such a time has come again. Utah is facing an
increasingly competitive business environment, both
regionally and globally. Gone are the days when competition was measured among
communities in our state; now it is measured between states and nations. To create the
advancements we need to grow and prosper, Utah must do as it has done in the past:
invest in the infrastructure and education that will benefit both our present and our
Executive Summary
Utahns can
accomplish
anything once
they put their
minds to it.
TT
ii
future. We must do everything possible to maintain the quality of our highly educated
workforce, while reinforcing our innate spirit of entrepreneurship.
The Milken Institute, a non-partisan think tank, recently noted that 50 percent of long-
term economic growth occurs because of scientific and technological change, and
that technology has doubled its share of economic activity in the past 20 years.
The implication is clear: embracing technological development could be as vital
to our state’s economy as developing our water resources was a century ago.
Fortunately, Utah’s state-assisted research universities have a strong tradition of support-
ing economic growth, both by providing human capital development and by maintaining
a steady flow of innovative ideas feeding into Utah’s “technology pipeline.”
There are Challenges to Face
All is not well in Utah. To claim otherwise denies the honesty that made this state great.
Our economy is only now recovering from its worst recession in nearly a half century.
Continuing population growth and accompanying environmental issues raise questions
that demand immediate and far-reaching answers; we must ensure a state where the
quality of life is as good for our children as it is for us. And we struggle with the chal-
lenges of education—not only providing for a burgeoning primary and secondary popu-
lation, but ensuring access to higher education for citizens from every economic stratum.
Even more critical is the lack of jobs awaiting Utah students. Each year, the University of
Utah and Utah State University (along with our colleague, Brigham Young University)
graduate thousands of men and women prepared to contribute to Utah’s economy in
clean, productive high-tech industries. Unfortunately, Utah’s current job market cannot
accommodate all its talented graduates; many of our best are lured away to jobs in more
competitive markets around the world. If Utah is to retain its brightest children and serve
as a beacon to the world, we must do a better job of preparing for tomorrow. We can do
this by investing in the very research universities and citizens that have primed Utah’s
economic pump for decades.
What Future Awaits Us?
High-tech businesses have had a major impact on Utah’s economic prosperity. At one
time, high-tech companies in Utah numbered as many as 3,400, employing more than
iii
60,000 people directly and some 133,000 in related services. Perhaps more telling, high-
tech jobs in Utah paid about 77 percent higher than the state’s average wage. Higher
wages equaled higher taxes; more companies meant more money for the state’s treasury.
Indeed, high-tech employment currently constitutes 4.9 percent of the state total, but
high-tech wages account for 8.4 percent of the state’s economy.
The future is clear: technology will compose the majority of sustained economic growth
in the nation. Those states that can grow and attract high-tech firms will be the ones to
succeed and thrive.
It’s worth noting that many Utah businesses pulsate with energy infused into them from
university-based discoveries. Companies like Myriad Genetics, Theratech, Evans &
Sutherland, Hyclone, WordPerfect and Iomega are just a
few examples of companies whose establishment as inter-
national powerhouses relied on innovations coming from
Utah’s research universities.
Unfortunately, some of these same Utah companies have
now relocated outside of Utah, joining many other busi-
nesses whose innovative sparks were ignited here but who
now heat the economies of other states and nations. We
cannot blame organizations for taking advantage of global
resources, but we must not allow this pattern to repeat itself. We must create an envi-
ronment where emergent companies find the resources they need right here.
Utah’s state government has partnered effectively with higher education to enable universi-
ties to play a supportive role. For example, Utah led the nation in its Centers of Excellence
Program. Its current efforts to attract new capital in its “Fund of Funds” and its support of
industry-specific “ecosystems” are additional ways the state sustains new enterprises heav-
ily reliant on Utah’s research universities. But more can and should be done.
The Synergy We Need
The government+higher education+industry partnerships suggested by prior programs
are precursors of what policy experts describe as the “triple helix” of economic develop-
ment. The components of this triple helix reinforce and strengthen one another, and
stand united to benefit the state and its citizens. To enable technology-fed economic
We must createan environmentwhere emergentcompanies findthe resourcesthey need righthere.
iv
development, the interplay between education, government, and industry must be
robust; building this triple helix is the best way to create a prosperous future.
Utah’s research universities, for example, contribute to that robust interplay by identify-
ing and encouraging promising technologies. However, they often lack the capital to
prepare those technologies for success in the marketplace. Achieving market viability for
new technology-based businesses is precisely where Utah’s government can cooperate
with its universities to focus combined resources.
The government’s role in the economic triple helix is equally vital. Only the state can
establish favorable tax policies, make selective investments, and protect the state’s
resources. Companies being recruited to anchor new technology clusters expect to see
state revenues invested in the state’s infrastructure, education system, and environment.
Research universities can help illustrate that governmental commitment.
Finally, the role of industry is to follow the prompting of the “invisible hand” that econo-
mist Adam Smith says guides the market place. If the universities and state government
do their jobs well, the advantages that Utah provides will attract and retain the businesses,
entrepreneurs, financiers, and service providers needed for Utah’s economy to thrive.
Besting the Competition
Capturing additional Federal research grants is one example of what might be achieved
by increasing Utah’s competitive environment. Such grants are a major financial artery
for research universities and help foster the innovations that ultimately benefit the state.
Together, Utah State University and the University of Utah brought more than $500 mil-
lion in research funds to the state of Utah last year. Gaining access to Federal dollars is a
highly competitive process, and—as a criterion for the awarding of grants—Federal agen-
cies increasingly look at the full complement of economic infrastructure that supports
petitioning institutions. It is therefore imperative for Utah to support university activities
that develop synergistic clusters of high-tech companies.
Sadly, when it comes to state support for technology development Utah is being left
behind. We once stood at the forefront of such support but sister states are now besting
us. California, for example, is investing over a billion dollars in research university infra-
structure. Arizona, facing more than a billion dollar deficit in 2003, committed over $400
million in high-tech and educational initiatives during the next 20 years. Michigan initiated
v
spending $1 billion on a “life science corridor” and created a statewide accelerator
program that will take advantage of existing university-based incubators to advance
technology-based start-ups. North Carolina dedicated $4.5 billion just for construction
and renovations at the University of North Carolina. And the list could go on.
In the face of this national rush toward technology development, Utah cannot afford to
remain idle. Rather, our comparative strengths, built up over a rich history of education
research and service, should be put to work to increase Utah’s competitiveness. We must
increase our capacity for research and development or we will continue to fall behind.
Utah stands at the brink. Implementing just seven objectives can alter our future and
ensure a brighter tomorrow for all our posterity.
� Establish and strengthen research institutes in targeted technology areas.
� Increase incentives to attract and maintain research and development talent.
� Build and expand research facilities.
� Enhance business incubation at Utah’s research universities.
� Expand the state Centers of Excellence Program.
� Increase incentives and support for new ventures.
� Increase access to venture capital.
We all share a common goal to improve the lives and well-being of every Utahn.
Let us work with one another to arrive at solutions both innovative and practical—
solutions that are uniquely ours, based on a heritage of commitment to education
and economic development that benefits all of us. We are at the brink; now is the
time to press forward together.
CHAPTER 1:
Utah’s Investments in Infrastructure
tah has a legacy of creating opportunities out of difficult
challenges. Whether the challenge has been bringing
water to the arid state, connecting Utah’s population
with transportation infrastructure, or hosting one of the
largest athletic and cultural events in the world, Utah’s
leaders and citizens have met the challenge, invested
resources, and created a more prosperous future. Utah’s
challenge today—of global competition for jobs and
resources—requires us to identify and commit to invest-
ments that will prepare the way for Utahns to participate in
the rapidly evolving knowledge-based economy. As past
investments have shown, Utah’s vision and investment
today will dictate the state’s success tomorrow.
• 1919 – Colorado River Storage Compact; 1956 - Central Utah Project
• 1957 – Defense Highway System; 1996 - Centennial Highway Fund
• 1997 – Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee
• Now – Research, Technology, and Economic Development Infrastructure
Investment in Growth and Sustainability: Colorado River StorageCompact, 1919; Central Utah Project, 1956
When the Intermountain West began growing in the 1800s, the issue of water distribu-
tion was recognized as one of our most important challenges. In 1889 it was reported
that “water is just now agitating all people in this region.” A report issued at the time
indicated millions of people could be comfortably located in the arid West through the
storage and distribution of water that went to waste. “Operations of such magnitude,
1
As past investmentshave shown, Utah’svision and invest-ment today willdictate the state’ssuccess tomorrow.
UU
however, are not likely to be attempted by private resources. If it is to be accomplished
in any other way than by gradual progress of successive generations, it must be under-
taken by the Government.”
In 1919 Utah Governor Simon Bamberger urged government officials from the seven
states located along the Colorado River to organize the League of the Southwest. This
League sought equitable means for dividing the waters of the Colorado River and facili-
tating its usage. Under the League’s direction, the Colorado River Compact was created
to divide the river in an orderly manner for agricultural uses, to secure dam sites for the
storage of water, and to secure protection of life and property from floods.
Using seed funding from the League, Utah began petitioning the Federal government for
assistance with water infrastructure. Utah’s efforts resulted in Congress authorizing the
Central Utah Project (CUP) in 1946 and the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) in
1948. In 1956, CRSP (and the CUP, the largest single participating unit) was appropriated
about $760 million for general Great Basin water infrastructure, along with participating
projects in Utah.
The CUP stores and diverts water from the Colorado River for 200,000 acres of farmland
and to provide supplemental water for an additional 239,000 acres. In addition, the CUP
provides water for industrial and municipal uses along the Wasatch Front through a
series of diversion and storage dams, aqueducts, and tunnels to the Bonneville Basin
(Wasatch Front and areas south), where superior farm land is available and the bulk of
the state’s population is located.
The Central Utah project made widespread development in Utah possible, by bringing
water to the arid state. Still underway in Utah, it will provide water we need for farms,
industry, and municipal use well into the future.1
Investment in Infrastructure: Highways, 1950s
With the state population surging in the 1950s and 1960s, Utah was again at a critical
crossroad, needing to connect Utah with states across the nation. In 1957, legislation
sponsored by Senator Wallace F. Bennett of Utah aimed to add an additional 1,000 miles
to the 40,000 mile Defense Highway System (later renamed the Interstate system). With
this transportation addition, expansion and growth for Utah again became a reality.2
Since the establishment of the Interstate System, Utah’s transportation needs have con-
tinued to grow. In 1996 Governor Mike Leavitt introduced a 10-year transportation plan
2
that called for the state to spend more than $3 billion on highway construction over a
10-year period. This led to the Legislature placing $75 million in the base budget toward
transportation, allowing $750 million to be raised through 2006 for highways.3 In 1996 the
Highway Centennial Fund was also created and $110 million was committed by the state
to improve highways and to pay for new highways and major reconstruction in Utah.4
In 1997, Utah citizens voted to increase Utah’s gas tax by 5¢ per gallon as the state began
the $1.59 billion reconstruction of I-15 in Salt Lake County and other major road projects,
preparatory to Utah hosting the 2002 Olympic Winter Games.5
By making thoughtful investments, Utah is working to ensure that the transportation
infrastructure in Utah will enable long-term economic growth.6
Investment in Economy: Olympic Winter Games, 2002
Another critical investment for Utah came in 1995 when the International Olympic
Committee awarded the 2002 Olympic Winter Games to Salt Lake City. This defining
moment provided Utah with the opportunity to strengthen its global standing and con-
nection to the world.
Thirty years of preparation went into the making of Salt Lake’s bid for the Winter Games.
From the 1960s through the 1990s, the state and the winter sports community demonstrated
their commitment by building multi-million dollar winter-sports facilities with no guarantee
the games would ever be held in Utah. This dedication and commitment paid off.7
According to a 1995 IOC report, strong financing and overwhelming public support were
two of the biggest strengths Utah had for hosting the 2002 Winter Games. The report
stated: “There is great public awareness and enthusiasm for the bid, as well as good
public support demonstrated by a 1989 referendum and by 25 surveys carried out in
recent years.”
A stipulation agreement between the state and Salt Lake City was also cited as a major
strength by the IOC. The agreement stated that if the City should fail to meet its contrac-
tual obligations, the state would assume any liabilities.8
In 1997, the Utah State senate passed a bill designed to help the Salt Lake Organizing
Committee secure the money needed to put on the 2002 Winter Games. The resolution
ensured that the Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC) would have access to up to
$200 million dollars if needed.9
3
More than $59 million had been pledged by taxpayers to fund various competition sites
by 1995 and, in 2002, the Salt Lake Olympic Bid Committee raised approximately $3.2
million in private donations. In all, the bidding process cost $3.5 million each year.10
In 2002, the Olympic Winter Games fulfilled its promise, providing the state with a need-
ed economic infusion of an estimated $1.3 billion, which helped cushion the early effects
of the nationwide recession.
Olympic-related in-state spending included:� Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC) ....................................................$804 million� Infrastructure investment .............................................................................$326 million� Visitor spending during the Winter Games ................................................$117 million� ISB’s spending to broadcast the Winter Games...........................................$49 million� Direct Federal funds to state government for Olympic operations ..........$17 million11
Additionally, the 2002 Olympic Winter Games provided a significant employment impact
of over 35,000 job years. Says the Utah Foundation: “Statewide employment growth
rates in 2001 and 2002 would be much lower were it not for the Games.” 12
Investment in the Future: Research, Technologyand Economic Development Infrastructure, Now
Major accomplishments in the state over the past sesqui-
century have been no less than astounding. Once a barren
desert, Utah today is a vibrant, flourishing region with one
of the highest quality-of-life ratings in the country.13
To improve our current situation and to weather tomor-
row’s storms, we must commit to an investment that is no
less vital than our water infrastructure and no less vision-
ary than hosting the world at the Winter Olympics. We
must ensure our economic stature by building the infra-
structure needed for high-quality businesses and jobs.
Strengthening our state’s research universities can help us
do just that.
4
To improve ourcurrent situationand to weathertomorrow’sstorms, we mustcommit to aninvestment thatis no less vitalthan our waterinfrastructureand no lessvisionary thanhosting the worldat the WinterOlympics.
Research universities, as opposed to other universities, colleges, and places of higher
learning in the state, are not only the educational flagships of Utah; they also provide
more statewide practical, social and economic benefits than any other institution in the
state. The three-fold mission of a research university—learning, discovery, and engage-
ment—is unique. No other entity takes on the responsibility of providing affordable,
state-of-the-art education, creating new knowledge, ideas and technology for worldwide
benefits, and supplying practical assistance and service to all citizens of the state. From
farming techniques, to financial counseling, to resources for disabled persons, research
universities have lent willing hands and minds to help deal with nearly every issue of
concern in Utah.
These ideas and services can do more than provide for our state’s practical needs; our
research universities, the University of Utah and Utah State University, can provide the
knowledge, expertise and human capital needed to create a launch-pad and landing-strip
for high-tech companies.
To do this, we must act. We must facilitate the evolving role that research universities
have in the state and invest the resources needed to make them as they are in other
states: educational and economic centers.
5
7
CHAPTER 2:
Utah’s Public Issues
ritical public issues in Utah show a significant need for
the creation and expansion of Utah’s in-state industry
strengths. Utah’s economy, still fragile during its recov-
ery, needs an improvement in both the quantity and quality
of available jobs. As the state continues to grow at a near
record pace, the need for those high-paying jobs will sig-
nificantly increase over the coming years. At the same
time, higher education in the state must remain accessible
for Utah’s students and competitive with neighboring
states. These and other difficult public issues will require
innovative thinking and practical solutions by the state’s
citizens, business leaders, and policy makers.
Economic Issues
This past electoral season, Utah voters said that jobs and economic development were
the second-most important public issue, behind only public education in perceived
importance.1 The recession of 2001-2003 marked the state’s worst economic
slump since 1954. Not since World War II has Utah experienced back-to-back
years of employment contraction.2 Only now are signs beginning to show that
Utah’s economic health is reaching a period of recovery.
No facet of the economy is more visible to the state’s constituents than the job market.
Although the job market is beginning to strengthen, the Bureau of Economic and
Business Research (BEBR) fears that a low-wage recovery will follow Utah’s high-wage
recession. According to the Bureau, “Low-wage rates have long been a vulnerability of
the Utah economy.”3 Average annual wages increased in 2003—at a rate of 1.4 percent
to $30,537—but it was not enough to keep pace with current inflation rates.4
Difficult public
issues will require
innovative thinking
and practical
solutions by the
state’s citizens,
business leaders,
and policy makers.
CC
8
Job concerns for Utah citizens are compounded by increasing burdens on their existing
incomes. The Utah Foundation reports “Utah’s state tax burden is...8th highest in the
nation. This is partly the result of funding a public education system for Utah’s substan-
tial student population.”5 For families with students attending college, recent dramatic
increases in tuition have also required extra fiscal attention.
Some positive news, however, is emerging. For instance, Utah’s job growth between
September 2003 and September 2004 was 32,900 jobs, or about 3 percent, suggesting
that the state is finally “shedding the shackles of recession.”6 Even during the recession,
Utah’s economy continued to outperform the nation, says Utah’s Council of Economic
Advisors. The Council attributes this to strong internal population growth; a young, well-
educated workforce; a strong work ethic; and low business costs. A recent study echoes
this sentiment.7 In September 2004, the Boyd Co., a corporate location consulting firm,
released a study that placed Salt Lake City on a list of cities west of the Mississippi
attractive to technology companies looking to flee the cost-
prohibitive California market. The area offers a lower cost
of living, strong intellectual capital, and strong work ethic.
According to the study, these factors create a strong com-
petitive advantage.8
Current forecasts provide even more good news for Utah’s
economy. All major forecast groups (Blue Chip,
Global Insight, Zions Bank, State of Utah, BEBR, and
Economy.com) predict positive changes for Utah.9
Business leaders, public officials, and research universities must encourage Utah’s eco-
nomic recovery by promoting needed economic and intellectual capital development.
Growth and Sustainability Issues
Throughout the Western states, growth continues to be one of the greatest challenges
for state policy makers. States must accommodate a growing population, while maintain-
ing quality of life and environmental conditions at the same time. In Utah, issues of
growth and the environment were two of the ten most important issues for voters in
November 2004’s election.
No facet of the economy is more visibleto the state’sconstituents thanthe job market.
9
Population Growth
Utah is one of the youngest, fastest-growing states in the nation. The state’s official 2003
population was estimated to be 2.39 million, increasing 2 percent from 2002. Although the
state continues to experience net in-migration, natural increase accounts for the majority of
Utah’s population growth. According to Census 2000, Utah also continues to be the
youngest state in the nation, with a median age of 27.1, compared to 35.3 nationally.10
Growth projections suggest coming challenges for Utah’s education system and job
market. Beginning in 2004 and continuing for at least a decade, the 5-to-18-year-old
population will increase significantly: Even with zero net migration to the state, Utah can
expect an additional 169,600 students—an increase of 35 percent—by the year 2020. Salt
Lake and Utah counties will be especially affected, with a projected 60 percent increase
in the school age population from 2000 to 2030. This will result in more school-age
persons per capita than any other state.11
Not only does this trend have major implications for Utah’s public education and higher
education systems, it will also affect the dynamics of Utah’s job market. The crest of
Utah’s “Second Boom” (born 1978-1984) are now 20-to-26-years-old, and are leaving the
education system and looking for jobs. The Third Boom will enter higher education
between 2016 and 2025, and need jobs by 2030.
To keep our best and brightest students within the state, high-quality jobs
must be available. Already, Utah’s current job market is strained with new entrants;
from 1990 to 2000, Utah’s worker population grew by 41 percent—compared with 12 per-
cent nationally.12
Environmental Sustainability
Utah’s population growth also brings challenges to the environment and to sustainability.
The impact of more Utah residents requires innovative solutions to finite water, land, and
air resources. These problems may best be solved by the efforts of research universities.
The environment also has effects on Utah’s economy. Many of Utah’s natural resource
industries (farming, mining, manufacture) are decreasing over time, which requires other
industries—such as high-tech—to pick up the slack.
10
Higher Education Issues
Utah is known for its high quality, affordable higher education, but it must ensure the
quality of education remains among the best in the nation. In spite of budget constraints
forcing increases in tuition and low salaries for faculty, investments must be made to
recruit and retain the best professors, researchers, and scientists and maintain Utah’s
competitiveness in higher education. Public and private support from the state is critical,
for without students, the state’s higher education system and intellectual capital
resources will be significantly compromised.
According to Measuring Up 2004, a detailed report on the overall condition of higher
education in each state, Utah has improved in the percentage of students scoring well on
national math, science, and reading assessments. However, Utah has seen a decline in
the chances of young adults enrolling in college. Utah has continued to keep public two-
year colleges and public and private four-year institutions affordable, which is commendable
in light of a nationwide declined in the affordability of college. According to the report:
� Utah performs well in preparing students for college. For example, two-thirds of sec-
ondary school students are taught by qualified teachers, which compares well with
top states.
� However, over the past decade, the likelihood of 9th graders in Utah enrolling in col-
lege within four years has declined substantially, from 42 percent to 31 percent. Top
states score 52 percent on this measure.
� Utah has held the line on the share of family income, after financial aid, needed to
attend its public two-year colleges and its public and private four-year institutions,
making Utah a best-performing state in this area.
� However, net college costs for low- and middle-income students to attend public two-
or four-year colleges and universities still represent 25 percent of their annual family
income. (Net college costs equal tuition, room, and board minus financial aid.)13
Within the Utah System of Higher Education, projected enrollment increases may provide
increased opportunity. Utah has the potential to capitalize on a major strength—a quality,
affordable education—if the issue of lower participation in higher education can be reme-
died.14 In the coming years, Utah must maintain the competitiveness of its higher education
institutions to ensure these students stay in-state to pursue their education and their careers.
11
Infrastructure Issues
Utah has spent billions of dollars developing quality physical infrastructure for the
state. Transportation, especially I-15 reconstruction and TRAX, have had visible ben-
efits to many Utah citizens, yet other infrastructure—such as power, water, sewer,
and telephone would be propelled to the top of the public agenda if any of these
were not sufficiently provided.
Utah’s technological infrastructure needs to be strengthened now; it is as vital as any
public system we currently take for granted. Technology infrastructure, however, does
not consist only of broadband Internet wiring and computer terminals. It also requires
facilities, human capital, and money. Factors needed for an effective technological infra-
structure include “at least one mega-success story” that can serve a synergistic purpose
to the research university by helping encourage more start-ups; high-tech, well-educated
talent; venture capital; an infrastructure of supporting law firms, Web designers, high-
fiber Internet connections, and other business services; and a widely shared attitude of a
visionary high-tech future.15
The research university, though, is at the center of any growing technology infra-
structure.16 The success of regional economic in Silicon Valley, California, Route 128
in Massachusetts, and Research Triangle Park in North Carolina show that this is the
case. By investing in research universities, the hub of our technological infrastruc-
ture, Utah can create the momentum needed to strengthen and develop our own
regional economy.
13
High-tech businesses have had a major impact in determining Utah’s economic pros-
perity. High-tech companies in Utah have numbered as many as 3,400, employing
more than 60,000 people.1 This does not include the 133,000 individuals who work in
the service industry, many of whom are involved with technology in some fashion.2 Fifty
percent of high-tech companies are professional, scientific and technical service organi-
zations. Twenty-six percent provide information services, with nine percent focused on
retail trade.3
The high-tech industry’s size is not the only reason for its importance to the Utah econo-
my. High-tech jobs are largely responsible for increasing average wages in Utah and
comprise a disproportionate amount of the state’s
overall economy. High-tech jobs in Utah pay an
average of more than $51,000—77 percent above
the state’s average wage. While its employment
makes up 4.9 percent of the state total, high-tech
wages account for 8.4 percent of the state’s economy.4
In the past decade, the nationwide tech industry
experienced dramatic gains and losses and has
taken regional economies on an unpredictable
roller coaster ride. Despite the tech sector’s short-
term uncertainty, however, most economists are
confident in the fact that, over time, the high-tech
industry will comprise the majority of sustained
economic growth in the nation, and those states
that can grow and attract high-tech firms will be
the ones to succeed.5
CHAPTER 3:
Utah’s High-Tech History
HH
Most economists are
confident in the fact
that, over time, the
high-tech industry will
comprise the majority
of sustained economic
growth in the nation,
and those states that
can grow and attract
high-tech firms will be
the ones to succeed.
14
Utah’s High-Tech Beginning and Successes
During the 1980s, Utah was second only to the state of Washington in successful soft-
ware development.6 A Salt Lake Tribune article reported that, “Some remember a
time when Utah rolled off the tongue in any uttering of the nation’s high-tech hot
spots along with California’s Silicon Valley and North Carolina’s Research Triangle.”7
Consider these examples:
Novell, perhaps Utah’s brightest technology star, “invented the technology that enables
personal computers to talk to one another, an innovation that changed the world.”
Established in Provo in 1983, Novell was a breakout leader in personal computer operat-
ing systems and early network solutions.8
WordPerfect, also originally located in Utah Valley, led the word processing industry, and
its main product was called a “life-changing technology.”9 With 4,000 employees and
sales of more than $500 million in 1991, WordPerfect became a national business
leader.10 The founders of Novell and WordPerfect, Raymond Noorda and Alan Ashton,
both graduated from the University of Utah.11
Other businesses such as “Iomega Corp. and its once high-flying Zip drive called Utah
home. Unisys Corp. and 3Com built a major presence in the state, and Intel and Micron
Technology identified Utah as a site for significant expansion….”12
Utah also played a role in major technology companies that don’t currently have a signif-
icant presence in Utah. Adobe Systems, the world leader in desktop publishing and digi-
tal imaging software, was co-founded by University of Utah alumnus John Warnock.
Located in San Jose, CA, the company employs more than 3,700 and posted annual rev-
enues of $1.2 billion in 2003.13 Another U of U alumnus, Ed Catmull, co-founded Pixar
Animation Studios with Steve Jobs and serves as the company’s president. Located in
Emeryville, California, Pixar employs more than 730 skilled personnel.14
In the 1980s, the state, understanding the importance of developing strong competency
in high-tech in the region, began forming strategic partnerships with businesses and uni-
versities. An example is the establishment of economic focus areas by the Utah state
government, accompanied by representative industry organizations aligned with these
focus areas, including the Utah Information Technologies Association (UITA), the Utah
Life Sciences Association and others.15 While the state dedicated some limited resources
to launch these industry groups, they quickly became industry-led and self-sustaining,
15
and have provided an effective means for Utah’s businesses to provide input to the gov-
ernment on an array of issues.
Another example of state investment in research and technology is the Utah Centers of
Excellence Program, which is a state-sponsored program that funds late-stage research
in order to develop new products, high-tech companies, and skilled jobs. Highlights of
the program include:
� The cumulative state funding for the COEP
between 1986 and 2001 was $33.7 million and
the cumulative matching funds received was
$356.1 million, resulting in a matching fund
ratio of 10.6 to one.
� Over the entire life of the program, intellec-
tual property created by faculty participating
in the Centers of Excellence accounts for 170
patents, resulting in 197 license agreements.
� Since the inception of the program, 142 com-
panies have been created and licensed propri-
etary technology from the program.
� Currently, companies that trace their origins to
the COEP employ an estimated 1300 persons
in the high technology sector of the economy.
The wage for this workforce averages $68,000
per year.
Since its inception in 1986, the program has helped create thousands of high-tech jobs,
assisted in the creation of spin-off companies, and through improving products and
processes has helped hundreds of Utah’s high-technology companies experience
tremendous growth.16
Utah’s stature in IT, however, waned in the 1990s. Novell and WordPerfect merged in
an effort to fend off challenges to their technology by Microsoft Corp. The attempt
failed. WordPerfect became part of Canada’s Corel Corp. Iomega moved its headquar-
ters from Roy, Utah, to San Diego, California; neither Intel nor Micron has yet realized
more than a fraction of their original expansion plans for Utah. And Novell, though
Since its inception in
1986, the program has
helped create thousands
of high-tech jobs,
assisted in the creation
of spin-off companies,
and through improving
products and processes
has helped hundreds of
Utah’s high-technology
companies experience
tremendous growth.
16
still located in Provo, has moved its headquarters to Massachusetts and has restruc-
tured several times, resulting in a series of layoffs.17
Referring to Utah’s technology successes and failures, former Governor Mike Leavitt said,
“While we have a rich history of innovation, let’s be honest about it. While the number of
jobs that have been created are in the tens of millions out of Utah technologies, too few
of them have been created [or remained] here.”18
Utah’s High-Tech Industry in the Dot-Com Era
Many former employees of Utah’s early tech ventures invested their severance pack-
ages into other start-up companies, some of which became successful. These, along
with a collection of Internet and health industry start-ups, kept Utah’s reputation in the
tech sector alive. In 1998, Utah received national recognition when Newsweek placed
Salt Lake City in a class of 10 cities worldwide as “hot new tech cities,” described as
“high fliers whose success at attracting and nurturing high-paying, high-tech jobs is
dramatically changing their regions’ demeanor.” According to industry experts, the
main element needed for such cities is the presence of a major research university.
The article cited the value of the University of Utah, one of the first institutions to link
up to the Internet’s predecessor.19
High-tech interest was just as strong in Utah during the ‘90s. The Utah-Silicon Valley
Alliance, championed by then-Governor Mike Leavitt, developed a strategy to lure
Calfornia-based companies to Utah with the state’s cheaper real estate, skilled labor
force, and access to major research universities. In reference to the Alliance, Gov. Leavitt
said, “We are planting seeds now that will bear fruit later. We are creating more than just
jobs. We are creating 21st century careers so our children and grandchildren can flourish
in the New Economy.”20
Utah Recession and the Falter of High-Tech
“When high technology gets the sniffles, Utah’s economy gets pneumonia,” said Utah
Technology Industry Council member Brad Bertoch.21 During the nationwide recession
that can be traced to March 2001, that assessment proved especially true. According
to the 2004 Economic Report to the Governor, the decline of high tech in Utah was
listed as one of three major factors of overall economic decline in Utah, along with the
national recession and the closing of the 2002 Olympics.22
17
Utah’s technology sector lost almost 10,000 jobs between 2001 and 2003. That repre-
sents a 15 percent loss of typically high-wage jobs.23 Computer systems design, com-
puter and peripheral equipment, aerospace and software publishing all have average
salaries above $60,000. In one year (2002), nearly 4,700 jobs were lost in these four
high-wage subsectors.24 According to the Utah Department of Workforce Services,
“...It’s the loss of the higher spending power from tech workers that’s having a dispro-
portionate influence on the economy. It’s the loss of that spending power that has
reached into retail sales, car and clothing purchases and service industries, and that’s
prolonging the economic downturn.”25
Assistance from state government in promoting high-tech also has slowed, according to
some. “We have not put together a strategic plan to focus on high technology,” Bertoch
said. UTIC council member Suzanne Winters concurred: “Utah, five years ago, was
ranked in the top five of high-tech business economic development programs.
Today we’re not even in the top 20.”26
The picture created by recent tech indicators seems bleak, but it is not the entire picture.
Although there have been undisputed losses in the tech sector, most of those losses
have been confined to the information technology industry, which is barely one-fourth of
the entire Utah tech sector. In fact, in 2003 three technology industries were posting
gains on the year: medical equipment and supply, engineering services, and scientific
research.27 Many companies in these important growing industries have even closer ties
to and reliance on Utah’s research universities.
State Outlook: The Re-emergence of High-Tech
According to economic experts, dramatic losses in the high-tech sector may be at an
end. The 2004 Economic Report to the Governor says, “The rate at which high technolo-
gy jobs are declining appears to be slowing,” while the Utah Information Technology
Association (UITA) is yet more optimistic: “Utah’s IT industry may have taken a beating
along with the rest of the country’s, yet it continues to grow steadily larger.” In a recent
study UITA found that Utah’s overall IT industry increased 13 percent since 1999, and the
number of IT jobs is increasing as well; the 57,442 IT employees in Utah is an increase of
34 percent since 1999.28 Also, according to investor relations specialist David Politis,
recent increases in venture capital funding in the state provide additional evidence that
Utah’s tech sector is rebounding.29
18
Continued state investment in high-tech has helped Utah weather the recent recession
and move toward a high-growth potential once again. For example, Utah is participating
with other forward-looking states in bridging the venture capital gap. In 2003 the “Fund
of Funds” was established by the Utah legislature. The Utah Capital Investment
Corporation is authorized under the legislation to use $100 million in contingent tax credits
to induce venture capital firms to establish and maintain a presence in the Utah market.
Revenue from the tax credits will not be directly invested in ventures but will be available
to banks and financial institutions under secured instruments to make investments to
venture funds in the state. As much as $200 million dollars could become available under
this program for investments in new Utah enterprises, but it could also attract a pool of
over a billion dollars of existing venture capital assets to the state.30
Recently, the state’s reorganization under the Utah Technology Alliance resulted in the
establishment of new “ecosystems,” including Web Services, Biotechnology, Medical
Devices and Digital Media. This new structure emphasizes the state government’s per-
ception that increased attention must be paid to Utah’s infrastructure needs.
Two of these ecosystems represent major existing industry sectors. Biotechnology and
biomedicine are growing at a rapid pace throughout the nation and will be responsible
for more than 3.5 million jobs in the U.S. by 2014. Utah stands to benefit disproportion-
ately from that growth; according to the Milken Institute, biopharmaceutical employment
in Utah grew at a significantly faster rate, 194 percent, between 1993 and 2003 that for
the nation (28.1 percent).31 Biotechnology’s future is impressive, considering the following:
� Biopharmaceuticals are responsible for 2.7 million jobs and 2.1 percent of total
employment in the nation. Each job in the industry creates another 5.7 jobs elsewhere
in the economy, substantially above the average for all industries.
� The biopharmaceutical industry paid an average paid an average annual wage of
$72,600 in 2003 and is among the most productive sectors in the U.S. economy with
real output per worker of $157,300.
� Many state economies are highly dependent on the biopharmaceutical industry,
including New Jersey, Massachusetts, Indiana, North Carolina, Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, California, Utah, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Illinois, and
Washington.32
Both Salt Lake City and Provo have established strong clusters in biomedical research
and in biotech—with Provo hosting the second-fastest-growing cluster in the Southwest
19
(as of 2000). Companies that comprise these important clusters include TheraTech,
Myriad Genetics, Echelon Biosciences, and Applied Biosciences. Each of these companies
had its beginning in a university-based Center of Excellence. For example:
� Myriad Genetics, created in 1991 from work done at the University of Utah, has grown
to become a leading biopharmaceutical company in the medical industry.33 Myriad
guides the development of new healthcare products that treat major diseases, leading
to proprietary targets for human drug discovery.34 Myriad currently has a professional
oncology product sales force of 100 people and recently formed a partnership with
Abbott Laboratories.35 In 2004, Myriad reported sales of $34.3 million, up 25 percent
from FY 2003, and recent sales indicate that this growth rate will continue
into 2005.36
� TheraTech, founded in 1985 on research conducted at The University of Utah, has
made a name for itself in the biotech industry as a leader in the development of
innovative products based on controlled release drug delivery technologies, such
as patches and mild electric pulses. TheraTech has developed two transdermal
products and is working on a wide range of drug delivery products.37
� Idaho Techology, incorporated in 1990 on research conducted at The University of
Utah, created a high-speed thermal-cycling instrument to match the speed of bio-
chemical reactions. In 1999, the company began working with the U.S. Air Force to
develop the world’s first Ruggedized Advanced Pathogen Identification Device to
detect or study disease-causing organisms.
During the early nineties, while these companies were just emerging, Utah relied on its
strong background in software development and computer connectivity to set the state’s
economic pace. While our pre-eminence in information technologies has waned, the
newer entrants to Utah’s high-tech showcase have more than made up for those losses.
The question Utah is faced with today is, “Where will Utah’s resources need to
be directed for economic success in the 2010s?” The answer to that question
lies on the lab benches and in the computers of our state’s research universities.
Despite the sometimes volatile nature of the tech sector, it remains a vital component of
Utah’s growing economy. Overall, the majority of sustained economic growth nationwide
will be in high-tech industries. Utah, which is in even greater need of high-wage jobs,
must rely on the tech sector to create them. According to a recent article in Connect magazine,
20
“White-collar jobs that will be strong in the future will not be the standard
high-tech jobs of the past. Rather, they’ll be high-concept and high-touch.
Former programmers will become ‘IT designers,’ required to understand the
bigger picture of business and relate to a larger group of people. The job
becomes more of a synthesis of skills.”38
Also, other industries—mining, farming, ranching, and manufacture—that have been the
traditional mainstay of Utah’s economy, are predicted to continue declining over the
coming years.
State Technology and Science Index: Utah’s Standing in High-Tech
The State Technology and Science Index was created by the Milken Institute as a bench-
mark assessment for states as a means to monitor high-tech economic progress. The
index encompasses a comprehensive inventory of technology and science assets that
can be leveraged by a state to promote economic development. The five equally weight-
ed components of the index include:
1. Research & Development Inputs
2. Risk Capital and Entrepreneurial Infrastructure
3. Human Capital Investment
4. Technology and Science Workforce
5. Technology Concentration and Dynamism.
According to the Milken Institute, the single most important variable in explaining tech-
nology outcomes across states is the Risk Capital and Entrepreneurial Infrastructure
composite.39 For 2004, rankings for western states were as follows:
California .......................................................................................2Colorado........................................................................................3Washington ...................................................................................6Utah ..............................................................................9New Mexico ................................................................................14Arizona.........................................................................................17Oregon.........................................................................................19Idaho............................................................................................30Wyoming.....................................................................................41Nevada.........................................................................................43
21
Utah’s best placement was in technology concentration and dynamism, where it secured
the highest number of INC 500 companies per 10,000 business establishments. Utah is
currently taking action to enhance its position in the future. Utah voters recently passed
a constitutional amendment, which will permit universities to take ownership in private
business exchange for intellectual property. Utah’s lowest ranking of 17 fell under
Technology and Science Workforce Composite. This composite indicates the amount of
research and development the scientific workforce con-
verts into commercially viable products and services.
According to the Milken Institute, when skilled technical
and science workers migrate from other regions to a
geographic cluster or remain in a cluster after graduating
from local institutions, localized growth is stimulated as
they reinforce the initial advantages of the region.
Regions that can retain their highly skilled technical and
science workforce can attract new firm formation and
sustain mature technology firms, eventually defining the
region as a technology pole. Despite Utah’s high ranking
on the overall index, the low score on the Technology
and Science Workforce Composite is hurting Utah’s
opportunity to become a true technology magnet. In
states that offer both the relevant job opportunities and a
vibrant, growth-oriented business environment such as
California (3), Colorado (5), and Washington (7), the tech workforce is gathering intensity
and attracting more and more firms to the region.40
For state and local economic development, the message is this: the quality of
scientists, engineers, physicists, system engineers and other creative technical
workers that states train and retain, and attract from other locations, will pro-
foundly impact a region’s future technology industry development.41
Utah did score in the top ten of the index on the Technology Concentration & Dynamism
Composite Index, which measures the degree to which a state’s economy is driven by
the technology sector and the success of technology outcomes in that state. Just
because technology is prevalent in a state does not necessarily mean that technology is
growing in that state. With so many INC 500 Companies, Utah has a high percentage of
business births and many privately held companies begin in Utah, but we cannot retain
these firms for the long-term. On the Technology Concentration & Dynamism Composite
Index, Colorado ranked #2 with California at #4.
Despite Utah’shigh ranking onthe overall index,the low score onthe Technologyand ScienceWorkforceComposite ishurting Utah’sopportunity tobecome a truetechnologymagnet.
22
As Utah continues its economic recovery, many high-tech issues will need to be resolved.
� First, Utah’s diversity of high-tech industries needs to be recognized and celebrated.
Though information technology has been the most visible industry, many other com-
panies are emerging with promise of significant economic impact.
� Second, Utah continues to suffer from a low level of willing venture capital investors,
which leads to an inability for research and technology to create commercial out-
comes.
� Finally, Utah does not exhibit the same level of networking and partnership that com-
monly occurs in highly successful business clusters.
To help remedy these issues, methods and partnerships must be established to start-up
and incubate potential successful businesses. Utah’s research universities are ready to
help accomplish this, leading towards Utah’s next sustained economic boom.
23
very Utahn needs and enjoys benefits of the state’s research universities—education,
human capital development, social programs, innovation, and economic develop-
ment. Key leaders from all facets of government, industry and media favor expanded
support for university and technology research initiatives. From Governor Jon
Hunstman, Jr., to Zions Bank President and CEO Scott
Anderson, to both the Deseret Morning News and The
Salt Lake Tribune, statewide support is strong for
research universities.
Government Support
Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr.
When you conclude, as I do…that the next 20 to 40 years
of our economy of this country and indeed our state will
be driven by biosciences, life and health sciences, nan-
otechnology and their implications for defense, commu-
nications and everything else, either we’re going to be
part of that revolution or not.1
Platform Excerpts:
Utah should continue to encourage innovation and creativity
because it often leads to the formation of new companies, and
ultimately jobs. As Governor, I would push for the following:
� Streamline Utah’s technology transfer process at our research universities to make it
effective for business creation in Utah….We need to encourage the commercialization
CHAPTER 4:
Utah Support for Technology andResearch Universities
EEThe next 20 to
40 years of our
economy...will
be driven by
biosciences,
life and health
sciences,
nano-technology
and their
implications
for defense,
communications
and everything
else. Either we’re
going to be part
of that revolution
or not.
24
of our more innovative ideas…. A more collaborative approach will transform our
technology transfer process into a driver for Utah’s economy.
� Support substantial funding for the Centers of Excellence Programs to incubate more
start-up companies.
� Appoint a joint state/private task force to raise enough money to endow 30 new aca-
demic chairs at Utah’s colleges and universities. Each chair would fund the work of at
least one professional researcher in areas deemed strategic to Utah’s economy.
� Consider state bond funding for development of a business accelerator in the
University of Utah Research Park.
� Support the formation of another research park in Utah. This park should be a consor-
tium of research universities, community colleges (training) and private sector.
� Support university endowments focused on targeted industries.2
Former Governor Olene Walker
Higher education is the engine of economic development. With the research programs at
schools like the University of Utah and Utah State University, and the start-up businesses
they influence, we have a great potential to transfer technology from research to busi-
ness and back into research.3
*****
It is essential that we keep and grow high-technology companies here in the state. There
is not a more educated and well trained workforce in the country…. Many of the great
technologies of the world, like the television and network computing, were developed in
Utah, and we must strive to build on this legacy.4
*****
We need more quality jobs, like those found in the tech industry, so that we can keep
our most valuable resource–our families’ children–here in this state. To accelerate
industry growth we need to find ways to…promote close cooperation between our
schools and industry.5
*****
25
I have often said education is the fuel for economic development. That’s why one of the
first things I asked [as governor] is, how can we get the research institutions and the pri-
vate sectors working together to bring high quality jobs. Utah industry needs to keep up
with the research coming out of our world-class universities. Everybody benefits when
we work better with the universities.6
Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah)
It is in our best economic interest to do all we can to encourage invention, innovation
and investment…. Today, we are witnessing a revolution–the rise of a digital economy.
This global medium will become the most important driver of business, economic and
social change in this century.7
*****
Now, the transformation of the white collar world into a high tech world, while not
complete by any means, has caught up with the investment necessary to increase pro-
ductivity. So we, as a nation, are increasing both blue collar and white collar productivity
at a rate that is unprecedented in history, and that is what is driving the good times.8
Former U.S. Senator E.J. “Jake” Garn (R-Utah)
In an attempt to make ends meet today, some legislators would pull the footing out from
under tomorrow; they would cut higher education, one of the most stable and therefore
most stabilizing influences on our economic infrastructure. I look at the studies or just
out the window and I see evidence of the effect that higher education–particularly our
research universities–has on our lives…. While the state provides only a small portion of
the earmarked funds for research, it provides crucial underlying support in the form of
facilities and libraries. Without this support, the universities would be unable to attract
top faculty or external funding. Without this support, we might as well be eating our own
seed corn…. After 16 years on the Senate Appropriations Committee, I know the feel and
weight of public purse strings. The constraints are real, and the times are indeed differ-
ent and difficult. But neither of those excuses is good enough reason to just let higher
education get by. We must not shortchange the future or our children.9
26
Jonnie Wilkinson, associate director of the state’s Office of Business
Development
We’re not operating in a vacuum. We need a lot better cooperation among higher educa-
tion and economic development along the Wasatch Front than we’ve done in the past, to
create jobs.10
Education Support
Michael T. Benson, president of Snow College, Ephraim, Utah
Investing in education is the wisest course any state can pursue because brains are now
our most important natural resource…. Now, more than ever, our universities and col-
leges are in dire need of additional legislative support as we produce graduates who are
better prepared to compete in today’s ever-demanding global job market.
But why am I, as president of a small, rural junior college in central Utah, advocating for
increased investment into higher education in general and additional dollars for research
space in particular? There are many reasons, not the least of which is that Snow College
graduates—just like graduates of other smaller schools within our system—feed into
these programs at our larger campuses throughout the state.
The cities on the winning end of the talent war…have two common denominators: They
are in the top 10 for residents with college degrees and have the benefit of a research
university in their area. Now is the time for Utah to invest even more in its institutions of
higher education.11
State Board of Regents Chair Nolan E. Karras
It is said we are in the “Information Age” or a “Knowledge-based economy.” Higher
Education is the ‘knowledge factory.’ This is where new ideas are discovered and innova-
tion fostered and then applied to real-life situations….Business partnerships promote the
application of knowledge directly into the economy, [and] colleges and universities add
significantly to the quality of life in their communities and the state as a whole. Sacrifice
is…needed today to invest wisely in Utah’s future. But, it will pay great dividends in fur-
thering Utah’s economic development.12
27
Richard Kendell, commissioner of the Utah System of Higher Education
Research and development money…is such a vital part of [higher education] institutions
and our economy. Science, technology and innovation will drive the economy into the
future, and universities must be at the heart of the enterprise.13
Industry Support
Scott Anderson, president and CEO of Zions Bank
Scientific advancements…can have effects worldwide. But on a local level, university
research and development plays an immediate and important role in the regional
economy…. Research universities like the University of Utah and Utah State Univeristy,
in particular, are cost-effective energy-efficient turbines generating talent that flows into
the state economy.
In times of economic downturn, research universities are especially advantageous to a
region. They are stable and enduring economic engines, constantly evolving as new
ideas and industries emerge. They attract outside funds that flow into the state and help
bolster the region’s economic growth and vitality.
In order for these schools to have the infrastructure and talent necessary to compete at
the forefront of their fields, Utah’s legislature must provide them sufficient funding.
Lawmakers ever-conscious of their role in bolstering Utah’s economy should evaluate
research funding independent of general university allocations. The future of job growth
and business expansion in the state depends on it.14
Curtis Brunson, president, Communications West, a division of L-3
Communications
We’re probably one of the largest acquirers of talent out of the University of Utah. We
work very closely with them, we work with BYU, we work with Utah State and Weber
State. They are our lifeblood. We could not survive without this kind of talent being
pumped into our organization.15
28
Kelly K. Matthews, economist, Wells Fargo Bank
Now more than ever before, intellectual capital has become the source of business
expansion and job creation. Certainly fertile soil and abundant mineral deposits remain
important components of Utah’s economic base. There is little doubt, however, that the
state’s future economic growth will be determined by our brains rather than our brawn
and by the quality of our classrooms rather than the richness of our natural resources.
Within the broad spectrum of educational opportunity, a prestigious, world-class
research university is a vital lynchpin of the entire system.16
David Politis, president, Politis Communications
I love the fact that Utah’s technology economy, as well as the nation’s, appears to be on
the road back to recovery…. I also love the fact that Utah has become a high-tech center.
Not a Silicon Valley or a Seattle, nor a Research Triangle or Route 128. Rather it has
become something different, something all its own.
Utah has a well-educated, multi-lingual, digitally aware and connected populace. This,
plus ties to several institutions of higher education that are developing greater and
greater educational results in areas of engineering, computer science, and applied sci-
ence bode well for the state’s tech industry.17
Randy Rassmussen, chief operating officer, Idaho Technology, Inc.
Our first product was based on technology licensed from the University of Utah…. High-
tech companies like ours cannot exist in isolation. They need interaction with outside
experts to grow. The University of Utah is a great center of expertise in biotechnology.
We are at the University of Utah’s Research Park to increase our interactions with the
University. Most of Utah’s biotechnology industry is here in the park with us. Without the
University of Utah, there would be no Utah biotechnology industry.18
Jack Sunderlage, former VP at Compaq, Vice Chair for UITA
[Lawmakers] hopefully will play a critical role to further establish our universities as
“best is class” in certain areas. It is important to have our universities stand out in a few
fields. In every major market, you have “best of class” universities whose research is
spawning start-up companies in those fields.19
29
Media Support
Deseret Morning News
Utahns will reap big and long-lasting rewards from public expenditures in higher educa-
tion, particularly if they keep the costs low for students and their families. Everyone who
earns a college degree and stays in the state will end up helping the economy, by pur-
chasing houses and other big-ticket items, and the state’s bottom line through taxes.
Clearly, the state’s colleges and universities are…”the economic engine of the state”…
because R&D is the basic engine that drives American industry and commerce.
Tinkering with scientific research would be like using seeds for food instead of
planting the next crop.20
*****
Private companies and universities may need to find more ways to work together on
research so that both may benefit as the flow of Federal dollars begins to shrink. Without
commitment to R&D, America could find itself as a second-rate entity in a high-tech world.21
The Salt Lake Tribune
By several standards, Utah’s research universities already are productive. Besides pro-
viding a highly educated work force, these specialized programs produce patents that
fuel industry.
Utah legislators are not unique in the scrutiny of higher education costs and policies.
What makes Utah different is its growing population and demand for excellent education,
as well as progress already made toward greater efficiency. If the education system’s
budget doesn’t keep up with demands for service now, its output, in both numbers of
graduates and quality of education, will decline, and so will its abundant economic benefits.22
The Daily Herald (Provo)
There’s no denying that education needs to be a priority in Utah. The state’s economic
success depends upon providing Utah [students] with the best possible education.23
*****
30
As legislators craft the state budget, they should not see the colleges as expenses to be
controlled. Rather, they should see them as investments in Utah’s future.24
The Standard Examiner (Ogden)
State funding has dwindled, and relatively meager tuition increases during the past few
years have not kept pace…. In short, faculty strength must be maintained…if the school’s
degrees are to mean anything in the job market.25
*****
Utah desperately needs new business. But we’re at a severe disadvantage. The state, it
appears, views incentives to attract business to the state as an expense; it should be
viewing those expenditures as an investment for our future…. High-paying, highly skilled
jobs are precisely the kind Utah needs and should be chasing….. When the U.S. econom-
ic engine starts to rev again, if the state doesn’t begin to put its money where its mouth
is, we could lose out on more companies—companies with the kinds of jobs we desper-
ately need to make Utah’s economy grow.26
31
esearch universities have become an essential component of states’ economic
strategies. In addition to performing the vital traditional role of education and adding
to our collective ability to solve practical problems, research universities drive tech-
nology development and fuel regional and global economic growth.
Research Universities Create Innovation & Technology
Throughout history, research universities have produced much of the world’s basic and
practical knowledge. Newton’s Laws, electricity, chemistry, the periodic table, quantum
physics, genetics, and information technology are examples of areas that were advanced
in large part by institutional research.1 Says Arizona State University President Michael
Crow: “A necessary element for the development of these bodies of scientific knowledge
was the presence of academic scientists who were motivated by the quest to push back
the frontiers of knowledge.”2
Indeed, university-based research has resulted in much more than just academic publica-
tions. Results have led directly to technologies and innovations that enable faster and
more reliable transportation, more effective communication, healthier living, and other
benefits that are now considered essential parts of daily life. Additionally, each of these
activities has
incrementally
improved a
thousand times
over as a result
of continued
research
advances, both
large and
small.
CHAPTER 5:
Benefits of Research Universities
RR
Table 1: Technologies Enabled by University Research
� Electrification � Chemical and dyestuff Industries
� Electrochemicals � Pharmaceuticals
� Telegraphy � Telephone
� Radio � Semiconductors
� Television � Computers
� Nuclear Power � Aviation
� Numerical controlled machine tools � Biotechnology
� Modern agriculture � Advanced materials
� E-commerce � Online information services
� Mobile communications � Advances in medicine
32
Again, ASU President Michael Crow:
While each industry has its own story to tell, it is clear that all such indus-
tries could not have developed, or may not even have come into existence,
without the presence of significant public investments in universities and
complimentary organizations. These areas of knowledge have transformed
not only our possibilities for industry, but also our understanding of
human potential, our vision of our place in the world, and our expectations
for the improvement of humanity and its surroundings.3
Fortunately, university-based research continues to improve the human condition. A
large percentage of research projects aim to solve specific and practical problems and
yield solutions that may otherwise be unattainable. These solutions have become more
important than ever.
Not only have research advances improved the way we live, they have fundamentally
changed the worldwide economy. Intangible information and technology now are worth
more than many tangible resources and manufactured goods.
In the national economy, rapid growth has been and will continue to be in the high-tech-
nology sector. According to the Milken Institute, a non-partisan economic think tank:
� Scientific and technological change accounts for over 50 percent of long-term
economic growth.
� High-tech has doubled its share of the U.S. economy over the past 20 years.
� Since the 1990-91 recession, growth in the high-tech sector has been four times as
large as in the aggregate economy.4
Without technological change, “the per capita growth rate of an economy will inexorably
tend toward zero.”5 In much the same way that the manufacturing capacity of a region
shaped its economic success in the early- to mid-1900s, its technological capacity will
determine the extent of its growth and development in the 21st century.
Specialized knowledge is becoming a necessity, and creating that capacity requires
investment. “Without sufficient research infrastructure and top-notch talent (e.g., research
capacity), no university can serve as the hub for knowledge-based economic growth.”6 With
that investment, though, comes great opportunity. According to industry experts, “invest-
ments in knowledge infrastructure offer transformational opportunities that rework the very
nature of a region’s economy and its contribution to the global economy.”7
33
Research Universities Fuel the Economy
Despite fluctuations in the economy, high-tech and
knowledge-based industries will continue to earn the
lion’s share of growth in the coming decades. Regions
that want to be engaged in the next sustained wave of
progress and economic development must be strongly
invested in creating high-tech capacity.
At the heart of a region’s technological capacity lies the
research university. As a developer of human capital and
marketable innovation, the research university creates an
environment that serves as an effective launch pad for
emerging innovations and an attractive landing strip for
relocating and expanding companies.
Business & Technology Creation
New high-tech companies are understandably based on new technology, and no institu-
tion creates that technology as consistently as research universities. According to one
survey, approximately 10 percent of new products and processes depend on recent aca-
demic research.8
It is not the jobs created by the initial phase of university RD&E investments that
matter. What matters is the creation of a new source of job creation. By spawning
new technical fields and firms that can advance the commercialization of these
fields, university RD&E investments serve as the seed corn of knowledge-based
economic growth.9
Historically, research universities were not very active in the commercial sector, but
since the passage of the Bayh-Dole act in 1980, which allowed universities to hold
patentsfor their developed technology, the climate has changed. For example, the vol-
ume of university technology transfer through patenting and licensing has more than
doubledin just the past six years.10 The intersection of academia and business has proved
profitable for universities, researchers, companies, and the general economy as
researchers have searched more diligently for knowledge and technology with practical,
marketable applications.
Specialized
knowledge is
becoming a
necessity, and
creating that
capacity requires
investment.
34
Today, major research universities are pairing new technologies with market entry tech-
niques. This process, known as technology transfer, includes a variety of activities.
Kirchhoff (2002) points out:
The glue that holds [new business] clusters together is the effort universities are
putting into mechanisms to promote commercialization of the inventions that
emerge from their laboratories. Such mechanisms include campus incubators
where new firms can obtain low overhead space that includes low cost shared
services; professional sabbaticals to develop inventions into commercial products
or services; development of science parks; assistance with patent applications;
and even university-created venture capital funds poised to provide the early,
start-up stage capital that is so scarce in the private sector.11
Since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act, American universities have:
� Spun off more than 2,578 firms to commercialize innovations born of research, 79
percent of which remain in the state where the initial research was conducted
� Created 280,000 jobs in the process
� Contributed $40 billion annually to the American economy.12
Multiple and diverse lines of business, ranging from biotechnology to semiconductors,
software and aerospace to plastics, paper to steel and automobiles, rely heavily on
scientific research; such research provides the knowledge infrastructure crucial to the
success of much privately funded research, and to economic development.
Research universities are also fertile ground for the “spillover effect,” which suggests
that the “tacit knowledge generated by the R&D process at one firm may spill over to,
and be subsequently exploited for, economic gain by other firms.”13 University-based
research often exhibits the same spillover effects and helps spawn new firms from tacit
knowledge created at the institution.
A study for the U.S. Small Business Administration investigated whether R&D activities
at research universities have a significant effect on the formation on new local firms. The
report stated that “just like business firms, research universities form local innovative
activity centers, from which both knowledge spillovers and growth in specialized mar-
kets generate higher rates of new firm formations in one or more industries.” They also
discovered that these effects endured for at least five years after initial R&D spending.14
35
A region with a research
university surrounded by a
cluster of small- to medi-
um-sized start-up compa-
nies can also create the
ideal conditions for attract-
ing larger, high-tech firms.
Business Recruitment
The Milken Institute con-
ducted a study of vari-
ables that influence the
location and develop-
ment of regional high-
tech industries. Each fac-
tor was rated on its effec-
tiveness in helping to
establish a regional high-
tech cluster in the differ-
ent stages of economic
development. The insti-
tute found that:
Research centers and institutions are undisputedly the most important fac-
tor in incubating high-tech industries. A side effect of the technical capabili-
ty and scientific research activities of these institutions is the training and
education of the skilled labor that will be critical to the expansion and rein-
forcement of regional high-tech industries.15
When knowledge is produced by a research institution, the benefits not only accrue to
the producer, they often “spill-over” to the local economy. Therefore, universities with
specialties in highly tacit—or experiential—knowledge, create a geographic incentive for
companies based on that area of knowledge.
Human Capital
One of the most important contributions a research university can make to the economic
development of a region is skills development through the graduation of high-quality,
Table 2: High-Tech Development Factors cxii
Inception Growth Fortification
Public Policy
Tax Incentives ��� �
Public Investment � ��
Commercialization of Ideas � �� ��
Comparative Location Benchmarking
Cost Factors ���
Research Institutions ��� ��� ���
Skilled or Educated Labor Force �� ��� ���
Transportation Center �
Proximity to Supplies & Markets �� � �
Social Infrastructure Developments
Attending Changing Needs �� ���
Re-education & Training Facilities ��� �
Establishing Trade Groups, & Affiliations ��� ���
Housing, Zoning, & Quality of Life �� �� ���
��� = Critical �� = Very Important � = Important
36
technically savvy alumni.16 Just as manufacturing companies rely on resources of cop-
per, steel, or wood, high-tech companies locate where their major resource—skilled and
competent employees—can be found in ample supply.
Research universities help develop a highly skilled workforce equipped with the knowl-
edge necessary to operate a high-tech economy. “Research universities graduate and
attract college graduates to their local areas to provide the educated workforce needed
to support the clustering of new firms.”17 Unlike manufacturing industries that use up
their resources, however, the use of human capital only adds to the region’s wealth by
creating a higher-paid workforce with greater discretionary income to spend on goods
and services provided by other sectors of the economy.
In addition to creating and enhancing a skilled workforce, research universities are
instrumental in ensuring that those workers remain in the region. “It is interesting that
the attraction [by research universities] of post-graduate, professional business, and
engineering students has been found to lead to their long-term relocation.”18
National examples of University-InstigatedEconomic Growth
Across the country, regions in close proximity to
research universities are becoming technologic and eco-
nomic leaders. Although they vary in size and specialty,
most of these areas provide a significant economic
boost to their state.
Silicon Valley, California
Silicon Valley represents the archetype of high-tech eco-
nomic growth instigated by university knowledge. As
early as the 1930s, the seeds of high-tech entrepreneuri-
alism were already being sown in Silicon Valley when
Stanford electronics professor Fred Terman encouraged
two of his students, David Hewlett and William Packard,
to commercialize their audio-oscillator research. Located
at Stanford Research Park, Hewlett-Packard quickly grew
Across the country,
regions in close
proximity to
research universities
are becoming
technologic and
economic leaders.
Although they
vary in size and
specialty, most of
these areas provide
a significant
economic boost
to their state.
37
into a successful company and created the blueprint for other companies in the Park, and
later in the 30-by-10 mile strip of land in Santa Clara County that became Silicon Valley.19
In close proximity to Stanford University and the University of California-Berkeley, IT-
related companies sprang up along Highway 101 between San Francisco and San Jose.
Those companies eventually numbered more than 4,000 and currently generate more
than $200 billion in annual revenue.20
Among the different organizations that were instrumental in the process of creating the
technology powerhouse, the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) played the most significant
role. Because of its commercialization efforts, most of the first Silicon Valley companies
were formed by university faculty or alumni or were based on university-centered tech-
nology. Other companies were also drawn to the synergistic atmosphere that the univer-
sity-based companies had already created. Close collaboration with the research universi-
ties, along with government incentives and the pleasant California climate, made the per-
fect foundation for the most successful local economy in the world.
Consider the numbers: In 1996, more than half of the $100 billion gross
domestic products of the Silicon Valley economy came from companies
started by Stanford graduates and faculty. In 1998, Silicon Valley attracted
$4.7 billion in venture capital; had 15 percent of area workforce in research
and development; and was the home of more than 40 percent of the
wealthiest individuals in technology.21
According to the Milken Institute, “Policymakers from Kuala Lumpur to Jerusalem are
busy trying to clone Silicon Valley.” Although the Institute holds that such a grand task is
impossible, “those regions that come closest to duplicating Silicon Valley will be the
leading technology centers in the early stages of the 21st century.”22
The Milken Institute created a composite measure of technology production centers in
the United States. The Institute calls cities with high-tech production “tech-poles,” (see
Figure 1; next page) because of the gravitational-like pull they exert on technology activities.23
38
Figure 1: Milken Institute Tech Poles24
Not surprisingly, the San Jose metro tech-pole is unparalleled, with a tech-pole index
more than three times the second-place metro area. Virtually all tech poles—which
are calculated by combining the location quotient with its share of national high-tech
output—are located in close proximity to one or more major research universities.
Route 128, Massachusetts
Other regions of the country have experienced success in following the university-based
economic model. The 60-mile stretch of Route 128 between Boston and Cambridge has
become a high-tech mecca for some of the largest companies in the country, thanks to
its university anchors, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT). More than 1,000 MIT-related companies such as Raytheon, Gillette, Thermo
Electron, Lotus Development, and Bose are headquartered in Massachusetts. Those and
other MIT-related firms represent at least 5 percent of the state’s employment.25
According to Business Week:
If the companies founded by MIT alumni formed an independent nation, it
would be the 24th-largest economy in the world, somewhere between
39
South Africa and Thailand. Viewed another way, as of 1994 MIT-related
companies employed a total of 733,000 people, or 1 out of every 170 jobs in
the U.S. About 150 new MIT-related companies are founded each year.26
Other Regional Economies
Research Triangle in North Carolina, flanked by Duke University, the University of North
Carolina-Chapel Hill, and North Carolina State University, is another example of a suc-
cessful university tech center. Geographically, it is the largest research park in the world,
with more than 35,000 workers earning $1.2 billion in salaries annually.27 Other regions
are also creating successful university-based tech centers. For example, the University of
Rochester and the Rochester Institute of Technology’s strength in optic research has trans-
lated into a high concentration of imaging companies located in that area.28 The University
of California-San Diego is a high-tech center for software and biotechnology companies in
southern California.29 Robert Dynes, President of UC, says:
UC faculty and graduate students produce an average of three new inven-
tions every single day. These are the inventions that lead to new products,
new companies, new jobs and entire new industries for California. For
instance, UC faculty and alumni have founded 1 in 4 biotechnology firms in
California, and 85 percent of California biotech companies employ scien-
tists and engineers with advanced degrees from UC.30
Austin, Texas, has become a rival to Silicon Valley for software and semiconductor com-
panies, thanks in large part to the University of Texas-Austin, the flagship of Texas’ public
university system.31 According to one report, higher education in Texas has fueled the
state’s economy with nearly $25 billion a year and has contributed more than 600 high-
tech companies in the Austin area and Dallas.32
Though the most-often cited examples of university-related business clusters are located
around very prestigious universities, the most rapid high-tech growth is occurring around
smaller clusters, especially in the western United States. Milken’s tech-pole measures
show that Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Boise and Pocatello, Idaho, are experiencing
rapid high-tech expansion, with growth rates of more than 10 percent annually. These
cities have been successful in attracting large high-tech firms to their areas, including
Intel, Micron Technologies, and Hewlett-Packard. Each of these high-growth cities is
home to a research university.33
40
Figure 2: Relative High-Tech Real Output Growth, 1990-199834
Research universities support students
Although research universities are the most important factor in creating a successful
high-tech economy, economic development is not a university’s primary mission. The
first role of the university is to educate. Strong research activity, however, is just as
important to the integrity of higher education as it is to economic development. Bartlett
(2003) says:
The two responsibilities [of teaching and research] are in many ways
complementary, and the ability of the researcher to integrate his or her
students into the collective enterprise of research adds an important
dynamic to the best schools.35
This research/teaching dynamic provides valuable opportunities for students to grow
skills and competencies unavailable in traditional classroom environments. One study of
students who had participated in undergraduate research projects identified more than
40 benefits gained from their experiences. Benefits mentioned in this and other studies
are quite diverse. Students who conduct research are able to more firmly grasp the
41
concepts of the field they are studying, as well as other academic subjects, such as writ-
ing, statistics, and computer skills.36
Students who work with faculty on research projects also hone numerous cognitive skills,
including analytical and critical thinking abilities, organizations skills, experience working
with deadlines, public speaking skills, and the ability to form thoughtful questions.
Perhaps the most poignant benefits of student research, however, are those that occur at
the personal level. Student participants reported increased enthusiasm for the learning
process, relationships with faculty mentors, consideration of ethics, emotional maturity,
and self-confidence.
On the macro level, there are also many educational benefits of student interaction with
faculty researchers. According to one study, universities with undergraduate research
programs tend to have more students go on to pursue Ph.D. degrees.37 Students listed
preparation for graduate school, and even the decision to attend graduate school, as a
benefit of being exposed to the research process. Research also has been found to be a
source of scientific talent, attracting more students to science and engineering fields,
especially those from under-represented groups.38
Table 3: Selected Benefits of Undergraduate Research as Reported by Students cxxxiv
� Ability to analyze data � Increased comfort in statistics
� Ability to develop clear research ideas � Improved writing ability
� Improvement in math skills � Opportunity to manage and troubleshoot
� Ability to ask effective researchquestions
� Influence on decision to attend graduateschool
� Improved teamwork skills � Application of ethical principles to actualresearch situations
� Improved time management skills � Development of a one-to-one
relationship with a professor
� Development of leadership skills � Improved interpersonal communication
skills
� Ability to cope effectively with deadlines � Increased self-confidence
42
The educational aims of the research university serve to reinforce its economic value. By
investing in the quality of students’ education experience, the community receives an
enhanced output of human capital. More high-information and high-tech experts are cre-
ated, as well as more potential entrepreneurs of high-tech companies. The Boyer
Commission on Research Universities reported: “To an overwhelming degree, [research
universities] have furnished the cultural, intellectual, economic, and political leadership
of the nation.”39
43
ecause research universities are valuable to local, regional, and global economies,
national public officials and industry leaders have widely recognized those benefits
and have invested in improving the nation’s research capacity. Over the past decade
federal research funding has grown at record rates, and national senators and represen-
tatives have extolled the importance of investing in science, technology, and university
research. Industry leaders have also supported university research and partnerships, with
a $10 billion investment since 2000.
Federal Support for Research Universities
Federal Research Funding
Over the past decade, Federal funding for research has grown substantially. John
Marburger, Director of the Office of Science and Technology policy, stated: “….the
President provides an unprecedented level of investment in Federal R&D, marking the
first time in history that a President has requested an R&D budget greater than $100 bil-
lion. At $112 billion in FY2002, up 8 percent overall from last year, this is the largest
request increase for R&D in over a decade.”1
CHAPTER 6:
National Support for Research Universities
BB
Federal Obligations for Academic R&D
$10,926,788 $11,025,098$11,898,103 $12,180,859 $12,345,709
$13,019,428$13,876,806
$15,569,925
$17,290,384
$19,385,740
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Amount (in thousands)
44
Source: NSF WebCASPAR
The National Institutes of Health, the nation’s largest sponsor of research, recorded the
most substantial funding increases, with many of its program budgets doubling between
1998 and 2003.2
Major public investment in the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which
has seen its budget double in the last 5 years to nearly $27 billion for FY02
alone, has enabled the United States to both create a science and technolo-
gy base in biotechnology and leverage substantial private investment in
product and process applications.3
The National Science Foundation, which pays for 40 percent of all non-medical research
projects at academic institutions, has been promised similar gains.4
Thanks to increases in Federal research spending, most universities across the country have
been able to post significant gains in their overall research expenditures. This money has been
used to increase the nation’s overall research activity and innovation productivity.
R&D Funding, Selected Federal Agencies, 2001
$662,376
$1,949,521
$11,581,939
$2,577,135
$905,013
$0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000
Department of Agriculture
Department of Defense
National Institutes of Health
National Science Foundation
National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration
Amount (in thousands)
45
A more conservative growth pattern, however, is anticipated in the coming years for
Federal research spending.5 Despite the slower growth in funding for future Federal
research, overall, many programs have experienced dramatically increased funding. For
example, research spending at the Department of Homeland Security is scheduled to rise
by 15 percent in 2005.6
No matter the level of Federal research funding, it is vital to maintain a foothold of
research grants and contracts in diverse disciplines. Research grants are a major artery of
university livelihood and regional economic health. Austere predictions of research fund-
ing should only steel a state’s resolve to be more competitive in securing those research
grants from diverse sources.
Budget forecasts also indicate that strong partnerships with industry are more important
than ever. Relationships with industry partners can help diversify research funding.
Legislative and Agency Support for Research Universities
United States legislators and other government officials, recognizing the benefits of
research universities to their home states and districts, have worked to ensure strong
Federal funding for research. The following are selected remarks about the value of
investments in science, technology, and university research:
U.S. Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY):
Our research universities are such a vital national resource and I hope to ensure that they
continue to play a significant role in our nation’s scientific endeavors.7
U.S. Senator Kit Bond (R-MO):
Science in Missouri is extremely important. In this century, we’re going to lead the way
in developing life sciences breakthroughs that will not only contribute to improved
human health, but a cleaner environment and help hungry people around the world.8
46
U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM):
Basic research is the engine that makes our national defense, homeland security, and
economic security possible.9
U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX):
The [research] money coming into our state means better students and faculty at our
universities, greater opportunity within our communities, and more diverse industries
for our state.
We need the engineers to come from our Texas universities. We want to attract the great
minds and we want to keep them there. It also creates role models and mentors for our
young people to also go into science and engineering.10
U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)
Innovation comes from our universities, laboratories and private businesses, not from
the government. But a government that neglects innovation neglects the economic future
of America…. For innovation touches every corner of our economy. Technological
advancements enable workers and companies do what they do better, faster and more
efficiently…. Government can spark innovation by directly supporting basic and applied
research.11
U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA):
Increased funding for research programs will lead to better products and to bigger mar-
kets for Washington…. Especially now, we must do all we can to support industries
which will provide jobs and economic growth.12
U.S. Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS):
I believe strongly in the need for science and technology research as a tool to improve
quality of life for all Americans. And after September 11, this research is not only vital for
thriving in an economically competitive world, it must be vigorously pursued…. Research
47
is important. Every Federal and state dollar spent today will pay economic and social
dividends many times over in coming years…. A renewed commitment today to our
institutions of higher education and especially to science, engineering and technology
research is a commitment to our nation’s future.
If you do not have the basic research or the basic infrastructure to support that research,
you do not go ahead with the technology you need to keep the best and brightest at
home and provide employment opportunities. It’s as simple as that.13
U.S. Senator Rick Santorium (R-PA):
America is not going to be an economy that’s going to survive on using existing technol-
ogy. We’re going to survive and we’re going to grow by creating new technology and
being at the forefront. We can’t be a follower; we have to be a leader.14
U.S. Senator James Sensenbrenner (R-WI):
Basic science research is the engine of increased productivity for the American economy.
Basic science research means more exports which means more jobs for the people of
Wisconsin.15
U.S. Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX):
I think a focus on science is the smart thing. Science is the future, and high-tech jobs are
the backbone of our economy.16
U.S. Representative Zach Wamp (R-TN):
For the dollars we invest at the Federal level, we get enormous benefits that far outweigh
the investment…. Academia is actually the laboratories of ideas out there. It’s competi-
tiveness, new breakthroughs.17
48
U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR):
There is nothing more important to me…than my work to help revive Oregon’s flagging
economy. I believe research universities are the sparkplugs of economic activity. With
adequate research funding we can build a strong economy for Oregon for the 21st century.18
Research and the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century
The bi-partisan Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security to 2025 was established
to redefine national security and to do so in a more comprehensive fashion than any
other similar effort since 1947. The third phase of the commission report points out that
one of the primary threats to our national security is the failure to invest in science,
math, and engineering education:
In this Commission’s view, the inadequacies of our systems of research
and education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next
quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might imag-
ine. American national leadership must understand these deficiencies as
threats to national security. If we do not invest heavily and wisely in
rebuilding these two core strengths, America will be incapable of maintain-
ing its global position long into the 21st century.19
The Commission believes the fact that the nation’s scientific
and technological prowess is falling relative to other nations
is a serious threat:
Our systems of basic scientific research and educa-
tion are in serious crisis, while other countries are
redoubling their efforts. In the next quarter century,
we will likely see ourselves surpassed, and in relative
decline, unless we make a conscious national com-
mitment to maintain our edge.20
There is also, however, opportunity in today’s technological
climate. Says the Commission:
We also face unprecedented opportunity. The world is
entering an era of dramatic progress in bioscience
The world is
entering an era of
dramatic progress
in bioscience and
materials science as
well as information
technology
and scientific
instrumentation.
49
and materials science as well as information technology and scientific
instrumentation. Brought together and accelerated by nanoscience, these
rapidly developing research fields will transform our understanding of the
world and our capacity to manipulate it. The United States can remain the
world’s technological leader if it makes the commitment to do so.21
Hart-Rudman Commissioner Newt Gingrich expounded on opportunities in science, tech-
nology, and the economy, and how research universities bring them together:
My sense of the scale of the scientific revolution in the next 25 years is…if
you are not in a position to have people who are first rate, you’re just not
going to be in the game. And so I would argue…every state…ought to be
looking at what does it cost us to sustain a first-rate capability in science….
[In] Georgia for example, despite the fact that for a long time it was relatively
poor and very agrarian, the existence of Georgia Tech and the Georgia Tech
research facilities around the state really made a difference and is now really
paying off in North Atlanta. And I think that kind of approach is one I would
recommend to every single state in the country.22
Alan Greenspan
Alan Greenspan, chair of the Federal Reserve through an unprecedented four presiden-
cies, is one of the foremost experts on the strength and nature of the U.S. economy.
Greenspan is a champion of the research university, citing it as a primary component and
catalyst of the country’s economy and its transition into the information age.
Greenspan has noted that the United States economy is rapidly changing. “With the
rapid adoption of information technology,” he says, “the share of output that is concep-
tual rather than physical continues to grow.” Much of this transformation, says
Greenspan, is due to new innovation, especially in technology. He says: “Indeed, it is the
proliferation of information technology throughout the economy that makes the current
period appear so different from preceding decades…. As a result, information technolo-
gies have begun to alter significantly how we do business and create economic value,
often in ways that were not foreseeable even a decade ago.”23
According to Greenspan, research universities are necessary to facilitate these sweeping
economic changes on both the macro and micro levels, because they are uniquely
50
positioned to respond to new demands on human capital, technology innovation, and
business development. He says:
The advent of the twenty-first century will certainly bring new challenges
for our society and for our education system…. [W]e can be certain that our
institutions of higher education will remain at the center of the endeavor to
comprehend those profound changes and to seize the opportunities to
direct them toward ever-rising standards of living and quality of life.24
Throughout history, the nation’s education systems, and research universities specifically,
have helped its students gain the skills needed to operate in a changing economy. “The
scale and scope of higher education in America was being shaped by the recognition that
research—the creation of knowledge—complemented teaching and training—the diffu-
sion of knowledge.” This has been the case throughout the nation’s development.25
Today’s economy is demanding an even higher standard: “Workers must be equipped
not simply with technical know-how but also with the ability to create, analyze, and trans-
form information and to interact effectively with others.”26 With the current conditions of
an ever-changing economy, and two-thirds of high school graduates enrolling in college,
with many adults reentering education, “our institutions of higher learning increasingly
bear an important responsibility for ensuring that our society is prepared for the
demands of rapid economic change,” says Greenspan.27
Universities must also accommodate rapid economic change on the technological front.
Again, Alan Greenspan:
In a global environment in which prospects for economic growth now
depend importantly on a country’s capacity to develop and apply new tech-
nologies, our universities are envied around the world. The payoffs—in
terms of the flow of expertise, new products, and startup companies, for
example—have been impressive.28
One of the greatest payoffs of research universities, according to Greenspan, is the tech
cluster, or what he calls “significant centers of commercial innovation and entrepreneur-
ship.”29 In these clusters, “creative ideas flow freely between local academic scholars and
those in industry. State support, both for the university system and for small business,
has been an important element in the vitality of these centers,” Greenspan says.30
51
Greenspan also stresses the importance of state support for research universities. At the
92nd Annual Meeting of the National Governor’s Association, Greenspan gave advice to
state executives about operating in the new economy:
States with more flexible labor markets, skilled work forces, and a reputa-
tion for supporting innovation and entrepreneurship will be prime locations
for firms at the cutting edge of technology…. Your leadership as policy-
makers will be a key element in promoting an environment in which you
join with others in business, labor, and education to realize the potential
that technological change has for bringing substantial and lasting benefits
to our economy.31
Industry Support for Research Universities
Since 2000, industry has sponsored more than $10 billion in university research and develop-
ment. Even after the dot-com meltdown and nationwide recession, industry investment in
research has barely slowed and is expected to increase dramatically over the coming years.
As more partnerships between business and universities develop, the pace of industry invest-
ment accelerates. Already, nationwide industry R&D expenditures for universities have nearly
surpassed all R&D expenditures by state and local government.32
Industry-financed Academic R&D Expenditures
$1,360,357$1,422,247
$1,488,973
$1,605,338
$1,736,749
$1,888,254
$2,029,743
$2,152,871$2,213,929 $2,188,111
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Amount (in thousands)
52
Noting the benefits of research partnerships with universities, leading industry profes-
sionals and stakeholders have voiced their support for technology innovation, basic
research, and support for higher education.
Microsoft / Bill Gates
Former Washington governors Daniel J. Evans (R) and Booth Gardner (D) recall an
instance in 2002 when Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates was asked after a speech,
“What is the most important single thing that can be done to assure a prosperous eco-
nomic future?”
Gates’ reply: “Support your local university.”33
Microsoft is one notable example of a high-tech company that is eagerly creating part-
nerships with university talent. Bill Gates has repeatedly emphasized the importance of
research universities and the partnerships forged between them and industry.
A few examples from Bill Gates:
[Aug. 2, 2004] Our commitment to higher education has been and will con-
tinue to be broad and strong. Academic institutions worldwide remain at
the forefront of software innovation, driven by the possibilities of pure
research and a limitless imagination…. Together, we’re exploring new
research frontiers of innovation that will transform computing and create a
better future for people around the world.34
[July 28, 2003] The research and technologies coming out of university
computer science, engineering and research facilities are truly amazing,
which is why we continue to be so excited about our collaboration and
investment with academia. And, like our academic partners, we are opti-
mistic that the answers to the toughest computing questions are just
beginning to take shape through new breakthroughs.35
[July 28, 2003] One thing that university research is fantastic for is that
each different university, or groups within a university, can go off and take
a new approach. We want to make sure that we’re a collaborator, helping
out, providing tools, providing what we know, and then seeing which of the
approaches are making the advances, and making sure that we, along with
53
other companies like startups, can take that and make sure it has the
impact in the marketplace that it should have.36
Microsoft has recently backed up Gates’ words by establishing several formal university
research partnerships, including programs to identify, recognize, and support exceptional
computer researchers; programs that will work with universities to simplify code genera-
tion, optimization and program analysis issues; summits for the exchange of ideas
among faculty researchers; and other research pursuits.37
Top management at Microsoft also supports research partnerships with universities.
Douglas Leland, wordwide director of the Microsoft Research University Relations group,
says, “Our success as an industry depends on the tremendously talented people who
graduate every year from universities. The relationship between industry and academia
fuels a cycle of innovation, a ‘virtuous cycle,’ and we see it as a corporate imperative to
engage in and nurture this cycle.”38
Anne Craib, director of international trade, Semiconductor Industry
Association
If you have a decrease in funding for universities, by definition what
you’re doing is lowering the quality of facilities and professors and basic
infrastructure to educate your future engineers or technicians.39
Business and Finance Magazine
In recent decades increasing attention at both local and national levels has
been given to the subject of technology transfer. In the US, collaboration
between industry and universities has led to some impressive results with
universities such as Stanford leading the field. Indeed, most of the world’s
leading high-technology clusters are centered around such universities.40
Raymond Gilmartin, CEO of Merck & Co.
Markets will not tolerate slower-moving regions that do not continue to
innovate—and create environments conducive to innovations.41
54
William R. Hambrecht, president, W.R. Hambrecht & Co., LLC
The competitive challenge for the future is likely to come not just from low-
cost producers, but from low-cost innovators. Because the innovator club is
growing, the United States must look to the fundamentals to sustain a com-
petitive environment; support for basic research that creates the seedcorn for
innovation, an assured talent pool, and the legal, regulatory, and accounting
rules that can incent (or impede) industry investment in innovation.42
Mark Hanny, IBM vice president
Companies must be prepared for disruption, and universities must devote
sufficient resources and investment to getting ahead of the curve of this
new era. IT must be an integral part of any company’s new planning
process. As such, we need a deeper partnership between academia and
business to ensure that the students of today are qualified for the IT jobs of
tomorrow.43
Joint Resolution of the Semiconductor Industry Association board of directors
Funding for fundamental research in physical sciences and engineering
performed at America’s research universities is the single most important
public-policy issue facing the industry today because of the long-term
implications for both technology and workforce.44
Ross Perot, founder of EDS and former U.S. presidential candidate
A significant factor impeding the productive capacity of the US is the lack
of resources devoted to research. Germany and Japan are far ahead of us
on non-defense research, and probably even farther ahead in applying it to
productive purposes. The U.S. needs to place a greater emphasis on
research that adds to our quality of life and has commercial value as well.
The Federal government could facilitate this effort by [budgetary] spending
priorities and changes in the tax laws to encourage private research.45
55
Casey Porto, technology transfer expert and consultant, Case Western
University
Any company that partners with the universities in these research areas is
already leveraging millions and millions of dollars of state money. That is
about as much risk mitigation as you can have in research…. When the
company is spun out, it sounds like it’s a new, risky endeavor, but the fact
is the investors or the entrepreneurs spinning out the company at that
point are leveraging all this Federal money that’s gone into that research
for years. That’s why it’s attractive for investors and entrepreneurs to start
companies based on university technology. It didn’t just get discovered
yesterday. It’s usually after many, many people have worked many years
and spent millions of dollars.46
Willem P. Roelandts, president and chief executive officer, Xilinx Inc.
Unless governments step in and restimulate the long-term research in uni-
versities, I believe we are not going to see the rate of innovation we have
seen in previous years…. The government should work through universi-
ties to stimulate research. That is an area where the government can really
play an important role.47
David Tennenhouse, Intel Corp.’s director of research
Despite all that industry labs are doing to advance electronic devices, uni-
versity research remains the key to future progress…. There is great sci-
ence being done at universities.48
57
tates throughout the country have also chosen to aggressively invest in their local
research universities. Arizona’s Proposition 301—a $1 billion investment in high-tech,
research, and education—is just one example of a neighboring state’s farsighted
investment. In just a few years, money from Proposition 301 has spurred millions of
dollars in new federal grants, added new faculty members and programs of study to the
state universities, and created dozens of new research partnerships and ventures. Other
recent examples abound of state governments placing top priority on their research
capacity. Many of those states, including California, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia, are making commitments in the billions of dollars.
Case Study: Arizona and Proposition 301
In 2000, Arizona’s legislature and voters took a major
step in promoting the state’s high-tech economy when it
passed Proposition 301, which has been called “the most
substantial public investment in Arizona’s economic
future since the Central Arizona Project brought water
into the state.”1 Proposition 301 is a bill that changed
Arizona’s relationship with its public universities and
total education system. By treating research capacity not
as an obligation but as an investment, the state commit-
ted to its research universities $45 million annually over 20 years for high-tech economic
and educational initiatives.
Arizona State University (ASU) president Michael Crow crystallized a vision for a new
type of university, a “New American University,” that could bring new educational and
economic benefits to Arizona. He wrote, “I [propose] a new model for an American
research university,…one that does not just engage in community service but rather takes on
major responsibility for the economic, social and cultural health of its community.”2
CHAPTER 7:
State Investments in Research and Technology
SS
The most substantialpublic investmentin Arizona’seconomic futuresince the CentralArizona Project.
58
According to Crow, this fresh direction for ASU encompasses many new imperatives,
including: consideration of its socioeconomic setting; establishment as a force in the
community; research inquiry with practical applications; examination of societal rele-
vance; and global engagement. The most important of these, however, is the promotion
of entrepreneurial opportunities. Crow wrote:
As we move—fiscally, psychologically, emotionally—away from the para-
digm that Arizona State University is not only an agency of the state gov-
ernment, we must move towards a paradigm that casts the university as an
enterprise responsible for its own fate, an enterprise which the state gov-
ernment charters and empowers, and in which it invests.3
ASU is advancing the entrepreneurial potential of teaching and research. ASU faculty
members engage in path-breaking research, developing new learning tools and new
products with commercial application, all of which have the capacity to generate new
revenues for the university and state. “ASU must capitalize on its knowledge content and
intellectual property, expediting the transfer of knowledge and technology developed in
our classrooms and laboratories to the commercial sector,” states Crow.4
Based on this paradigm, Arizona legislators and citizens realized that research universi-
ties were positioned to address numerous public issues in the state, including growth,
diversity, economic diversification, and environmental sustainability. According to the
Morrison Institute for Public Policy, recognition emerged that:
� Universities are knowledge factories
� Arizona’s knowledge business depends on the state’s universities for their future leaders
and inventors
� The quality and the competitiveness of metropolitan regions increasingly stems from
new economic activities at their universities.5
Even though, like most states at the beginning of the recession, Arizona’s budget was loom-
ing close to the red, state legislators came to believe a major investment in education was
needed. Proposition 301, as approved by voters in November 2000, called for a six-tenths of
a percent sales tax increase to support K-12 education, public university science and tech-
nology research, and community college workforce development programs.6
Proposition 301 funding for public universities is “dedicated to expanding cutting-edge
research and education in science and technology as a means to foster sustained
59
economic growth in Arizona.” The funding is used to increase research capacity in six
key areas: biosciences/biotechnology, information science, advanced materials, manufac-
turing, access and workforce development, and technology transfer.7
Funding in FY02-03 was used for new hires, seed funding for external grants, new entre-
preneurial ventures, additional research programs, and skills development. Additionally,
a large portion was applied to one “mega-project,” the Arizona Biodesign Institute
(AzBio), which will be home to expanded biotechnology, nanotechnology, and informa-
tion technology research programs.8
NEW MONEY NEW PROGRAMS NEW VENTURES NEW SKILLS NEW TALENT
• $7.3 million in
Federal awards
• $1.3 million in indus-
trial contracts and
donations
• $400,000 in new
products to ASU
• $92,000 in value of
new startups to ASU
• 6 new courses in Bio,
IT and Nano
• A manufacturing
research roadmap in
collaboration with
industry
• 6 proof-of-concept
grants to faculty
• 13 technology trans-
fer portal inquiries
from industry
• 13 new research
collaborations with
industry & national
labs
• 1 new industry-uni-
versity research con-
sortium under devel-
opment
• 6 new software pack-
ages distributed
• 3 new products in
marketplace
• 3 new companies
started
• 20 licenses/options
signed
• 17 patents approved
and 106 patent appli-
cations filed
• 91 inventions dis-
closed
• 6 business plans
written
• 48 new post-doctoral
students in pipeline
• 19 new post-doctoral
students entering
workforce
• 120 new graduate
students in pipeline
• 33 graduate stu-
dents earning
degrees and entering
workforce
• 84 undergraduate
students with
research experience
• 10 more graduates in
Computer Science
and Engineering
• 227 high school stu-
dents completing
software design
material
• 88 internships in
industry of Software
Factory
• Internationally
renowned research
scientist and busi-
ness executive hired
to lead AzBiodesign
• 5 new senior tenured
faculty successfully
recruited
• 22 research faculty
hired
• 24 post-doctoral
research associates
hired
• 4 visiting scientists
appointed
60
Other support by the state legislature has also been given to Arizona’s research universi-
ties. The Arizona Research Infrastructure Bill, passed in June 2003, gave an additional
$400 million in state funding for research facilities throughout the state. This gave
Arizona State University the resources to build five new research-intensive buildings,
thus tripling ASU’s total research space.9
Although it may take decades to fully realize the benefits of this visionary investment,
there are already some indications of success. In just the past two years, Arizona has
increased its ranking in the Milken Institute State Technology and Science Index. The
Morrison Institute for Public Policy created measures to analyze the benefits of
Proposition 301, called the CAT index, which will monitor connections, attention, and
talent created by Arizona universities beginning in 2004.10
Arizona’s officials are confident in the potential of Proposition 301. “Leveraged with
other public and private funding sources, Proposition 301 monies offer the state an
extraordinary opportunity to stride ahead in the international race for brainpower,
innovation, and competitiveness.”11
Other Recent State Investments in Research
Alabama
$20 million: Center for transportation technology (2002)
Auburn University received a $20 million state fund match for $20 million in Federal
money. The funds were used to construct a 194,000sf center for transportation technolo-
gy on campus. The center will house researchers developing analytical approaches to
highway design and construction, traffic modeling and vehicle safety.12
$35 million, biomedical research facility (2001)
Gov. Don Siegelman agreed to provide $35 million from a state economic develop-
ment fund to support a $90 million biomedical research facility at the University of
Alabama-Birmingham. He also announced formation of the Alabama Research
Alliance, a state, business and research university partnership designed to boost
the state’s research investment.13
61
California
$3 billion proposed, stem cell research (2004)
Californians voted in November to publicly fund a $3 billion stem cell research initiative.
Taxpayers’ money will be used to underwrite research to use embryonic stem cells to
develop cures for Alzheimer’s disease and other illnesses. Under the plan, the research
will be financed by a state bond issue over 10 years.14
$95 million, genome and biomedical center (2004)
University of California-Davis recently dedicated a $95 million Genome and Biomedical
Center, funded by the Whitaker Foundation and the state’s Garamendi legislation (the
Garamendi law allows California universities to take out a construction loan and pay it
off using the overhead charges to research grants). The Center will house the UC-Davis
Genome Center, the Department of Biomedical Engineering, and a revitalized pharmacol-
ogy and toxicology department in the School of Medicine.15
$300 million, centers for biomedicine, nano-technology, and telecommunications (2003)
California recently began a $300 million initiative to create new centers for biomedicine,
nanotechnology, and telecommunications. Each center will receive $100 million in state
funds over the next four years, and each is expected to raise twice that amount on its
own, making the total potential investment worth $900 million. Former Californian
Gov. Gray Davis (D) described this investment as “the most ambitious scientific research
initiative ever undertaken” by the state.16
$1.65 billion, higher education facilities (2002)
Proposition 47 (approved by voters November 2002) provided $13.05 billion in bonds,
issued and repaid by California for the construction and modernization of elementary,
secondary and higher education facilities. Of that, $1.65 billion was reserved for college
campuses. The governor and legislature selected the projects to be paid for by the bond
dollars and some of this funding went toward the completion of a new science building
at California State University-Long Beach that will contain state-of-the-art teaching and
research laboratories for chemists, biochemists and biologists.17
62
$19.8 million, plant and environmental sciences building, (2002)
UC-Davis constructed a $39.6 million Plant and Environmental Sciences Building with
half the funding provided by state bonds and the other half through university funds.18
Florida
$20 million, Centers of Excellence program (2004)
Governor Jeb Bush (R) recommended $20 million in the FY04-05 budget for a Centers of
Excellence program in Florida, designed to foster innovative, cutting-edge technology
research at Florida’s colleges and universities.19
$10 million, biotechnology center (2003)
With a $10 million grant from the state, the University of Florida’s Center of Excellence
for Regenerative Health Biotechnology was created to stimulate promising research,
facilitate commercialization of treatments that provide cures for human diseases, and
create new companies and high-wage jobs for Florida.20
$180 million, research center (2002)
A new $180-million addition to the H. Lee Moffitt Center, the Vincent A. Stabile Research
Building, which was completed in April 2003, will add 350,000 square feet of research
space that can be used as a recruitment tool and help the University of South Florida
gain national recognition as a Carnegie Research 1 university. The new research center
has three floors of research laboratories and provides Moffitt with research and clinical
areas as well as a conference center and auditorium.21
Georgia
$1.05 billion, Georgia Research Initiative and building program (2004)
Vowing not to raise Georgians’ taxes next year, Gov. Sonny Perdue unveiled a budget
that slashes spending across state government by $800 million. The Republican governor
63
still found $5 million for the Medical College of Georgia Research Initiative and the
money to give teachers and state workers a modest pay raise, keep hospitals and state
parks open and borrow $1 billion for a building program aimed at speeding the state’s
economic recovery.22
$200 million, Georgia Research Alliance (1990-2002)
Since 1990 Georgia has invested $200 million in the Georgia Research Alliance,
matched by $50 million from the private sector. This resulted in an additional $500
million from the Federal government in increased grants and contracts awarded
competitively based on the increased merit and achievement of the research enter-
prise built at the six research universities in the state. The total enterprise has dou-
bled since 1990, from $400 million annually to over $800 million. Venture capital has
tripled, patents awarded have tripled and industry relationships with university
researchers have more than quadrupled.23
Illinois
$2 billion, VentureTech technology program (2000)
Gov. Ryan’s VentureTech program is a $2 billion, five-year program launched in 2000 to
invest state resources in technology. The program is funding projects like the construc-
tion of research facilities at Northwestern University’s Chicago campus and the
University of Illinois at Chicago. VentureTech has also funded the following “bricks and
mortar” investments:
� Rare Isotope Accelerator Science Center at Argonne - $16.6 million
� Center for Nanofabrication and Molecular Self-Assembly - $5 million
� Argonne Nanoscale Center - $19 million in FY02 and FY03
� Thomas M. Siebel Center for Computer Sciences - $80 million funded by state and
private donations
� UI National Center for Supercomputing Applications - $30 million - $2.5 million annu-
ally
� Fermi Accelerator Research – $2.5 million
64
� Advanced Photon Source - $3 million annually
� UI Microelectronics Laboratory
� University of Illinois Tech Incubator - $10 million
� UI Medical School - $93 million
� Chicago Tech Park Expansion - $17 million
� UI Medical Resonance Imaging - $10 million
� UI Chemical Sciences - $70 million
� Northwestern University Biomedical Research Building - the state’s $30 million invest-
ment has already secured an additional $90 million in private investment and is
expected to yield $76 million annually in federal research grants
� SIU Cancer Institute - $17 million
� University of Chicago Juvenile Diabetes Center - $13.4 million
� Illinois Institute of Technology Biomedical Research Center - $12 million24
$123 million, high-tech research facilities (2002)
Gov. George Ryan’s VentureTech program provided $123 million to the University of
Illinois to develop three high-tech research facilities on its Urbana-Champaign campus:
$67.5 million for the Post Genomic Institute, $27 million for the National Center for
Supercomputing Applications, and $18 million to expand the Micro and Nanotechnology
Laboratory. The money is separate from the state’s higher education budget and was
included in the state budget for the 2002 fiscal year.
Construction of the buildings, which will occupy nearly 230,000 square feet, began in
2002 and is expected to be completed within the next two years. Gov. Ryan’s office esti-
mates the project will create 1,500 construction jobs.25
65
Massachusetts
$10 million, engineering research center (2004)
Collaboration between the University of Massachusetts-Amherst campus, three other
universities, and various companies including Raytheon Co. of Waltham, will create a
new engineering research center with a $17 million grant from the National Science
Foundation. With contributions from the state and from business the project is now
funded at $40 million.26
Michigan
$1 billion, life sciences corridor (2002)
In May 1999, the University of Michigan committed $200 million for the establishment of
a life sciences institute; by 2002 the University of Michigan spent about $700 million on
new life sciences research facilities including a Life Sciences Institute Building, a 236,000
square foot state-of-the-art research laboratory building. Construction costs were $96
million. The University of Michigan is also investing $220 million for a new Biomedical
Science Research Building. The state has committed $1 billion to develop its Michigan
Life Sciences Corridor over the next 20 years.27
Minnesota
$250 million proposed, biosciences initiative (2004)
Governor Tim Pawlenty will ask the Minnesota Legislature to fund his ambitious
biosciences initiative this year, with the governor’s biotech advisory council recently
recommending $250 million to grow the state’s biotech industry. The biosciences initia-
tive includes $117 million to help develop facilities in the Twin Cities and Rochester to
support biotech growth (including $32 million for a bio-fuels research facility at the
University of Minnesota); $70 million for biotech research funding for a new biosciences
research partnership with the Mayo Clinic and the University of Minnesota; and $50
million in endowed professorships for the University of Minnesota.28
66
Missouri
$350 million, higher education facilities (2004)
Missouri colleges and universities will benefit, with total costs per project and state’s con-
tribution, from a $350 million bond proposal now before the State Senate.29
$190 million, research center (2003)
State House Speaker Catherine Hanaway (R) and Senate President Pro Tem Peter Kinder
(R) gathered support for a bond issue that will raise $190.4 million to renovate buildings
and build new research centers at each of the four University of Missouri campuses to
increase the state’s investment in life sciences research.30
$31 million, life sciences building (2002)
Gov. Bob Holden seeks to provide $31 million in state funds for a life sciences building
that business leaders hope will boost Kansas City into the top ranks of bioresearch cen-
ters in the nation. The building would house the university’s schools of Pharmacy and
Nursing and cutting-edge laboratory and research facilities, university officials said.
Holden said he would release $1.7 million immediately, which will allow the university to
seek an architect to design the project. Even in tough economic times, he said, the state
must make investments that will make Missouri a leader in research and development of
new products.31
Nebraska
Science center (2002)
Creighton University Medical Center is squeezing a six-story science center between
buildings. It also is renovating existing space into a neuroscience lab that can be used
only by NIH-funded scientists. Creighton currently has tax-exempt financing in place and
has received oral commitments to substantially cover the costs of the new building.32
67
New Jersey
$300 million, technology infrastructure (2004)
Since 1998, over $300 million in state funds have been granted for technology infrastruc-
ture and inter-institutional connectivity including: scientific and other equipment, technol-
ogy-based economic development initiatives, recruiting of renowned faculty, and pro-
grams in targeted high-tech disciplines.33
Innovation Zones (2004)
Governor James E. McGreevey this year unveiled plans for the creation of Innovation
Zones. The Innovation Zone concept is the state’s latest initiative that builds upon
Economic Development Administration’s past successes in strengthening university,
business, and government collaborations. This proposal, designed to spur collaboration
between universities and business community, will target financial and other state
resources to provide funding and technical support that encourages universities and
private businesses to collaborate on projects, encourages businesses to locate in
the defined zones, and attracts more Federal and other research dollars to business-
es and universities located in the zones. It will seek to attract scientists, students,
and entrepreneurs with the goal of creating a technology environment where people
live, work, and learn.34
$518 million, research building program (2002)
The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey embarked on a $518 million
building program to house new research, classroom and clinical space. In 1998, the uni-
versity began a major push to improve its research capabilities, including programs in
cancer, cardiovascular disease, neuroscience and injury caused by trauma.
The University has already completed the International Center for Public Health, a $78
million facility in Newark, with the help of the New Jersey Economic Development
Authority (EDA). The EDA financing and real estate capabilities are being used for the
project. The State of New Jersey provided an $18 million appropriation to the EDA for
site acquisition, relocation, design and improvement costs. The EDA sold $46 million in
low-interest long-term bonds for the project, and the balance is being funded through
68
grants and loans obtained by UMDNJ and University Heights Science Park. A new $37
million behavioral health science building will open in Newark next spring, and UMDNJ
is building a new $45 million research tower for molecular biology in Piscataway.35
$95 million, research buildings (2002)
The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey broke ground for a $100
million seven-story cancer center in Newark that will include a hospital complex
along with cancer research labs. It is also tripling the size of its cancer facility in
New Brunswick with a $71 million 150,000-square foot building. In addition, the uni-
versity’s Cancer Institute of New Jersey will receive $20 million in financing from
the state’s tobacco settlement fund. The buildings are to be financed through $95
million in state bonding authorized earlier and an additional $280 million in bonds
underwritten by the University. The University will finance the rest of the construc-
tion with gifts to the University and other internal funds.36
New Mexico
$21 million, public education facilities (2004)
The University of New Mexico will receive $21 million from the recently passed Bond
Measure B and plans to use it as follows:
� $8 million to plan, design, construct and equip an expanded anatomy teaching labora-
tory at the Health Sciences Center
� $2 million for patient care equipment at the Health Sciences Center
� $4 million to help plan, design, construct and equip the $30 million Centennial
Engineering Center at the School of Engineering on the main campus
� $3 million to renovate existing buildings on the main campus
� $200,000 to install equipment for a computer technology “clean room” on the main campus.
In all UNM will receive $550,000 for its Valencia branch campus and $3.2 million for its
branch campuses in Los Alamos, Gallup and Taos from Bond Measure B.37
69
New York
$1.2 billion, high-tech and biotech development (2001)
The New York State Legislature approved Gen*NY*sis, a $225 million fund created to
promote the biotechnology industry. Gen*NY*sis’ budget is part of a $1.2 billion capital
program to expand businesses and create new high-tech and biotech businesses in the state.
During September 2002 Gov. Pataki announced three major Gen*NY*sis investments:
� The University at Albany will build a $45 million, 125,000-square-foot Center for
Excellence in Cancer Genomics at its East Campus, the hub of the school’s biotechnol-
ogy efforts. Much of the work at the new center will be devoted to understanding
metastasis, or the spread of cancerous cells.
� $403 million microchip research and development facility called International
Sematech North at the University of Albany this fall, will make the region “a world-
wide leader in high-tech and biotech research and economic development.”
� The state will provide $48 million to support a $71.5 million partnership between
industry and university groups on Long Island to bolster biotechnology and educa-
tional and research programs.
� Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) will receive $22.5 million from the state to create
a Center for Bioengineering and Medicine. The research center will be housed in RPI’s
Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, an $80 million 218,000-square-
foot facility currently being built on RPI’s Troy campus.38
$50 million, University of Rochester Medical Center research and central New York
Biotechnology Research Center (2002)
The $30 million pledged to the University of Rochester (UR) Medical Center by Gov.
Pataki will mean new tenants for the Rochester Technology Park and seed money for
start-up biotechnology companies. Part of the grant—about $20 million—also will pay for
completing construction and equipment purchases at the medical center’s new research
buildings, which UR officials described as essential for the recruitment of scientists and
technicians. UR officials estimate the $30 million—the largest single contribution to the
medical center’s research efforts—will create 3,500 jobs at the medical center, related
vendors and spin-off companies and in construction. It is also projected to help produce
70
$45 million in venture capital and royalties. UR will use about $5 million to support a
partnership with Rochester Technology Park in Gates. The venture, University
Technology Partners Inc., will help commercialize UR research discoveries. About $5 mil-
lion will be used to lease tech park space for start-ups created from UR biomedical
research, said Mark Scheuerman, president and chief executive of UTP.
Governor Pataki announced that state taxpayers will supply $20 million of the $35 million
needed to build the first phase of a proposed 240,000 square-foot Central New York
Biotechnology Research Center. The biotech center, jointly run by SUNY Upstate Medical
University and the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, will eventually
grow to encompass three buildings and cost $80 million. The first phase will be 80,000
square feet on less than an acre leased from the Syracuse Veterans Affairs Medical
Center and will cost $35 million. Officials touted the center as a boon for the local econo-
my, initially generating 250 jobs with the possibility that it will create 1,000 jobs once all
three phases of the complex are complete. Groundbreaking for the first phase is antici-
pated to take place in about 18 months.39
North Carolina
$4.5 billion, UNC buildings and renovations (2001)
The legislature of North Carolina voted for $5.1 billion in bonds with $4.5 billion going to
the University of North Carolina for new buildings and renovations. The measure passed
in every county of the state with an overall 73 percent positive vote. The vote came after
an intensive study of need, and a lot of support from the NC Citizens for Business and
Industry who raised the money for a lobbying campaign. Several major projects have bid
successfully for funding, including the B.B. Dougherty Renovation at Appalachian State
($1.3 million), Film Archives Building at the North Carolina School of the Arts ($2.2 mil-
lion), Central Utilities Plant at North Carolina State University ($15.9 million), and Health
Sciences Library Renovation at UNC-Chapel Hill ($12 million).40
$24 million, nanotechnology research building (2002)
NC State University’s Centennial Campus in Raleigh will soon break ground for a new
building devoted entirely to nanotechnology R&D. The building will be 80,000 square
feet and will cost $24 million.41
71
Ohio
$1.1 billion, Third Frontier Project (2002-Present)
In 2002 Governor Bob Taft unveiled Ohio’s Third Frontier Project (TFP), the state’s largest-
ever commitment to expanding high-tech research, innovations and company formation.
The 10-year, $1.1 billion initiative has built world-class research facilities, supported early
stage capital formation, the development of new products, and has funded advanced
manufacturing technologies to increase productivity in existing industries.42 Under the
initiative, various programs were instigated to foster collaboration among Ohio’s higher
education institutions, non-profit research organizations, and local companies to ensure
the state’s successful economic future. These programs include:
� Wright Centers of Innovation–approximately $40 million in grants were awarded in
FY2004 from the Ohio Department of Development to support collaborations between
Ohio higher education institutions, non-profit research organizations, and Ohio com-
panies in order to accelerate the pace of commercialization in Ohio.
� Wright Projects–approximately $10 million43 in grants were awarded in FY 2004 from
the Ohio Department of Development to support specifically defined near term com-
mercialization projects at Ohio higher education institutions and non-profit research
organizations who are conducting research into areas of advanced materials, power
and propulsion, information technology and instruments, controls and electronics.
� Biomedical Research and Technology Transfer Partnership Program–grants to conduct
research leading to commercialization and long-term improvements to the health of
the citizens of Ohio.
� Third Frontier Fuel Cell Program–grants to support growth of the fuel cell industry in
Ohio with focus on technical and cost barriers to commercialization and adapting fuel
cell components produced in Ohio for use in fuel cell systems.
� Product Development Pilot Program–grants to support product development assis-
tance, including design, engineering, financing, marketing and management, to small
and medium-sized Ohio manufactures.
� The Innovation Ohio Loan Fund–created in 2003 with initial capitalization of $50 mil-
lion to assist companies in Ohio develop next generation products and services
� The Third Frontier Network–over 1,600 miles of dedicated high-speed fiber-optic network
for linking Ohio’s colleges and universities, elementary, middle and high schools, and state
and local governments, medical research centers, federal research centers.44
72
The following monetary awards were made in 2004 as part of the TFP:
� The University of Cincinnati’s Genome Research Institute received $68 million in
federal, non-profit and industrial funding.
� The Biomedical Structural, Functional and Molecular Imaging Enterprise, located at
The Ohio State University in Columbus, received $6 million from the National Institute
of Health.
� The Power Partnership of Ohio, located at Case Western University in Cleveland,
received $6 million in federal grants, as well as a $780,000 National Science
Foundation education grant.
� Columbus-based LeadScope received a $2 million award from the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST.)
� The Cardiovascular Bioengineering Enterprise, located at The Ohio State University in
Columbus, secured $10 million in federal funding.45
Oklahoma
$99 million, Vision 2025 initiative (2003)
The Tulsa area could become another growth area for the biotech industry. That possibil-
ity was helped with the passage of Tulsa County’s Vision 2025 proposal last year. Vision
2025 projects under consideration to receive part of the proposed $99 million funding
package for higher education include a research and medical clinic at OU-Tulsa. That
project could produce skilled graduates for the biotech industry as well as generate more
spin-off companies in the Tulsa area. The expansion of biotechnology research in
Oklahoma commands a high price tag but the end results are worth the investment,
officials say. According to one report, for every $1 invested in health research, the state
gets back $5.46
$38 million, national weather center (2002)
The Oklahoma legislature appropriated $38 million to establish a national weather
center at the University of Oklahoma in Norman and state-of-the art bioterrorism
research facilities at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater. The Federal government
73
set aside funds to match the state’s investment including $19 million for the OU
weather center. OSU is expected to receive a sizable portion of the $20 billion the
Bush Administration and Congress are expected to allocate for bioterrorism
research. “This legislation will pay enormous long term benefits to the state of
Oklahoma,” Governor Frank Keating said. “Establishing these facilities at our two
comprehensive universities will enable Oklahoma to establish itself as the premier
center in the United States for weather and bioterrorism related research. These
projects will provide students with an educational environment second to none and
will have a tremendous impact on both the public and private sector.”47
Oregon
$18 million, research park science building (2004)
The University of Oregon plans to build its new science building in the Riverfront
Research Park and make it a multi-use center combining nanotechnology research and a
“high-tech extension service” to help develop new businesses from UO discoveries.
The building could be as large as 60,000 square feet and cost in the neighborhood of
$18 million.48
$20 million, nanotechnology initiative (2004)
The Oregon legislature has allocated $20 million for construction and $1 million for oper-
ations for the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI) initiative.
The UO will receive $9.5 million of the construction funding and $475,000 of the operat-
ing money when bonds for the project are sold in early 2005.49
South Carolina
$500 million, economic development package (2004)
South Carolina unveiled a $500 million technology-based economic development pack-
age that targets life sciences, commits state funds to venture capital and facility and
infrastructure improvements at the state’s three research universities.50
74
$25 million, engineering education center (2002)
BMW announced a $10 million endowment for Clemson University to create a graduate
engineering education center in Greenville. The gift is the largest cash donation in
Clemson’s history. BMW’s $10 million pledge will endow the academic programs, and
S.C. Governor Jim Hodges said that the state will give $25 million to build and equip a
state-of-the-art research facility. The recently conceived graduate center for automotive
research is expected to attract at least 50 new students. The center would provide both
the academic and research support needed by BMW, its suppliers and the state’s rapidly
growing automotive industry.51
Tennessee
$40 million proposed, research park lab space (2002)
Memphis is in the process of building a $40 million, 160,000-square-foot lab building that
will represent phase one of the UT-Baptist Research Park. When complete, the UT-Baptist
Research Park will consist of 1.2 million square feet of research space. The Tennessee
Department of Economic and Community Development announced a grant of $750,000 to
Memphis to begin the infrastructure work necessary to build the biotech research park.
Tennessee Industrial Infrastructure Program (TIIP) funds are to be used for infrastructure
improvements or for job-specific workforce training for Tennessee industry. The current goal
is to raise $32 million from public and private sources over the next two years.52
Virginia
$900.5 million, research infrastructure (2002)
Virginia voters approved legislation that allows the Commonwealth to sell bonds to pay
for capital projects at public colleges, museums, and other educational facilities. The
University of Virginia (UVA) will get $68.3 million in projects from passage of the bond
referendum, including more than $24 million toward a 183,000-square-foot medical
research building that would provide lab space for research in cancer, infectious dis-
eases, allergies and immunology. Another $7 million would help UVA build a 100,000-
square-foot research facility for the engineering school’s material science engineering depart-
ment and the Center for Nanoscopic Materials Design. George Mason University expects their
share of the bond to go toward both a performing arts facility and research facility.53
75
Washington
$750 million proposed, biotechnology initiative (2004)
In his State of the State address, Gov. Locke promoted the Bio 21 initiative—a plan to invest
as much as $ 750 million in public money over the next 15 years to nurture Washington’s
infant biotechnology industry. He hopes to lay the foundations of such a strategy before he
leaves office in 2005. Over several months, Locke has gathered the state’s top research
institutions and corporations to put together a biotechnology initiative that is turning into one
of the most ambitious industry-fostering plans the state has attempted. Under the plan, the
state’s top research institutions could vie for competitive, peer-reviewed state grants, with
preference given to researchers who team up to speed progress. Venture capitalists and
corporations like Microsoft and Amgen would be involved early.54
Alabama $20 million, center for transportation technology (2002)
$35 million for biomedical research facility (2001)
California $3 billion proposed, for stem cell research (2004)
$95 million for genome and biomedical center (2004)
$300 million for biomedicine, nano-technology & telecommunications (2003)
$1.65 billion for higher education facilities (2002)
$19.8 million for plant and environmental sciences building, (2002)
Florida $20 million, Centers of Excellence program (2004)
$10 million, biotechnology center (2003)
$180 million, research center (2002)
Georgia $1.05 billion, Georgia Research Initiative and building program (2004)
$200 million, Georgia Research Alliance (1990-2002)
Illinois $2 billion, VentureTech technology program (2000)
$123 million, high-tech research facilities (2002)
Massachusetts $10 million, engineering research center (2004)
Michigan $1 billion, life sciences corridor (2002)
76
Minnesota $250 million proposed, biosciences initiative (2004)
Missouri $350 million, higher education facilities (2004)
$190 million, research center (2003)
$31 million, life sciences building (2002)
New Jersey $300 million, technology infrastructure (2004)
$518 million, research building program (2002)
$95 million, research buildings (2002)
New Mexico $21 million, public education facilities (2004)
New York $1.2 billion, high-tech and biotech development (2001)
$50 million, University of Rochester Medical Center research and central New York
Biotechnology Research Center (2002)
North Carolina $4.5 billion, UNC buildings and renovations (2001)
$24 million, nanotechnology research building (2002)
Ohio $1.1 billion, Third Frontier Project (2002-Present)
Oklahoma $99 million, Vision 2025 initiative (2003)
$38 million, national weather center (2002)
Oregon $18 million, research park science building (2004)
$20 million, nanotechnology initiative (2004)
South Carolina $500 million, economic development package (2004)
$25 million, engineering education center (2002)
Tennessee $40 million proposed, research park & lab space (2002)
Virginia $900.5 million, research infrastructure (2002)
Washington $750 million proposed, biotechnology initiative (2004)
77
he contributions of higher education have always been valued in Utah. Advanced
learning was a key tenet of Utah’s first immigrants. “We should be a people of
profound learning,” said Brigham Young, L.D.S. church president and first territorial
governor.1 Public education was as important to the settlers as tilling land, sowing crops,
and building houses. During Utah’s early years, the University of Utah and Utah State
University had a large role in advancing the state’s intellectual capital, industry, and
development. Where, a century ago, the state’s research universities were vital for their
contributions in agriculture, mining, and military training, they are now a fundamental
part of regional economic development.
The University of Deseret was established just two years after the pioneers’ arrival in the
Salt Lake Valley; it was, in fact, founded even before the state became a state! The first
classes of the University were small, and funding was a
continuing challenge for the frontier community, yet
enthusiasm for the institution never diminished.2 After
many years of struggle and growth, the University of
Deseret eventually became the University of Utah.
In 1886, the Agricultural College of Utah was established
as the forerunner of Utah State University. Over time, the
University of Utah and Utah State University have grown
up with the state, providing both different and similar
functions that have substantially enhanced the state’s
well-being.
Establishment and Mission of Utah’s Research Universities
The University of Utah
The first classes taught at University of Utah (then the University of Deseret) were held in
private homes or wherever suitable space could be found. Funds to pay for teachers and
CHAPTER 8:
Utah’s Research University Tradition
TT
“We should be
a people of
profound learning.”
–Brigham Young, first
territorial governor
78
supplies came from private donations.3 The urge for an institution of higher learning in
Utah was strong, but the economic foundation needed to be built. Classes were sus-
pended after two years, until the state’s investment in higher education began in earnest.
During the early years of the University, even under trying economic conditions and
uncertainty about location, the University produced a number of benefits to the state,
including graduates of note in many fields. These included Heber M. Wells, the first gov-
ernor after Utah achieved statehood; Heber J. Grant, president of the L.D.S. church; Don
Carlos Young, a famous architect; Richard W. Young, who would rise to the rank of
General in the U.S. Army; B. H. Roberts, the famous historian; and Orson F. Whitney, a
Mormon scholar and historian.4
In 1892, the University of Deseret became the University of Utah, and that decade the state
legislature appropriated $200,000 (nearly $3 million in 2004 dollars) to create facilities for the
new campus, to be located on the Salt Lake Valley’s east bench. Over the next half century,
the University focused on education—both for the development of teachers for Utah’s public
schools, and also for other knowledge and skills that would benefit its students. Although
education was the primary initial role of the University of Utah, many other services were
provided to the state, including the state’s first library; training for the state’s military during
both World Wars; thousands of faculty, staff, support and construction jobs; and major
development of the state’s mining, business, and medical industries.5
Utah State University
Utah State University’s beginnings can be traced to the mid-nineteenth century.
President Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Act in 1862, which provided for a grant of
land from the Federal government to the several states and territories. The subsequent
sale of the land would provide an endowment to establish colleges that would, in the
words of the act, support and maintain institutions:
...where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and
classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of
learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such man-
ner as the Legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to
promote the liberal education of the industrial classes in the several pur-
suits and professions of life.6
79
The Morrill Act was one of the first large-scale investments in intellectual capital because
it was focused on developing an entire society of learned individuals. Utah State
University was designed to be a school for all people, an institution intended to create a
state of “citizen scholars” and a competent, well-educated workforce.
Though rightly centered on the home campus in Logan, the interests of
Utah State University have historically stretched far beyond its institutional
center. As part of the Land-Grant system—and as home to the Utah
Agricultural Experiment Station—the University was founded with the idea
that it would take its discoveries from the campus to the people.7
Though not explicitly stated in its mandate, Utah State University—originally called Utah
State Agricultural College—required intensive research programs from its inception.
Research took place primarily through the Agricultural Experiment Station, the most
important component of the University at the time, that was established to deal with
challenges associated with the most prominent industry in the state. Jeremiah W.
Sanborn was recruited from the University of Missouri to head the Experiment Station,
and he directed many research activities aimed at developing efficient agriculture meth-
ods that could be used to improve agricultural productivity.8
An especially important area of agricultural research was dry farming, which involves a
specific set of techniques for raising crops in Utah’s semi-arid climate. John A. Widtsoe
and L. A. Merrill investigated dry farming practices in the state and developed the first
systematic presentation of the principles in the nation. In 1903, the legislature appropriat-
ed $12,500 for the establishment and maintenance of six experimental dry farms of 40
acres each in different parts of the state. These farms did much to stimulate the growth
of dry farming, greatly influencing the agricultural industry of the state, which, at the
height of the industry, accounted for as many as 30,000 farms. Today, nearly half of
Utah’s 2 million acres of cultivated land still utilize the dry farming practices developed
by Widstoe and Merrill.9
To further extend Utah State University research findings and benefits to the entire state,
the Cooperative Extension program was created. The beginnings of the Extension
Service came when the Experiment Station obtained money to hold a “Farmer’s
Encampment” in each county in Utah—bringing the research work of the College to its
rural constituency. In 1891, the Experiment Station expanded its role further by placing
one of its employees, L.M. Winsor, in Vernal. Essentially the first county agent in the
western United States, he was called to Washington to help launch a federally backed
80
county agent and extension program under the Smith-Lever Act. Utah State had placed
county agents in all counties by 1922, and since then has expanded their roles to teaching in
rural areas. These programs proved successful in providing needed benefits to the state.10
Due to commitments to the experiment station, extension division, and
outreach programs, the college attracted thousands of students from rural
Utah and surrounding states. The “AC,” as it was labeled, literally fulfilled
its mission by claiming “the state is our campus.”11
The Evolving Role of Utah’s Research Universities
The University of Utah
By the mid-1900s, the University of Utah, recognizing that the future would be a high-
tech one, had already taken steps to insure that it would be at the forefront of the rapidly
expanding world of research and development of computers, medical devices, and other
industries. These steps included the intertwined activities of increasing the University’s
research capacity, as well as creating an incubator and attractor of technology and busi-
ness development.
The last half of the twentieth century brought great advances for the U. By 1970, the
University’s regular and auxiliary faculties were among the nation’s most prolific
researchers. The University had made research connections worldwide and ranked
among the top 25 American colleges and universities in funded research. Some of the
University of Utah’s great research achievements included:
� Dr. Willem Kolff, the pioneer of artificial organs and limbs, made the University of
Utah a household name when the artificial heart he developed was implanted in Dr.
Barney Clark, a Seattle dentist.
� Evans and Sutherland, an early resident of Research Park, became the world leader in
computer simulators for aerospace.
� The University of Utah Hospital became a world leader in treatment of burns and
other trauma. The U of U Health Sciences Center also achieved prominence in cancer
research through its Huntsman Cancer Institute.12
The University of Utah became one of the first in higher education to recognize that the
profound results being created at the institution could be used to generate additional
81
practical and economic benefits for the state and beyond. In 1968, the University became
just the sixth university in the United States to initiate a technology transfer program.
And, in 1970 the University acquired land immediately adjacent to the campus and devel-
oped a research park to house high-tech companies, many of which grew out of faculty
research. By 1980, income from patents and commercial licenses on inventions from the
University’s faculty had significantly increased.
To create the many benefits yielded by the state, the University of Utah required the
support of the entire state.
A review of the past of the University of Utah reveals how the attainment
of its present maturity and prestige was the result of the vision and
foresight of [those] devoted to the principles and ideals of public higher
education [and] who have met the various crises with the positive convic-
tion that no outside contrary influence could be permitted to impede or
divert the educational purposes for which the institution was founded
and maintained, In those who have labored for it, the University of Utah
has its richest heritage.13
Utah State University
According to one historian, “the change from College to University was a process—and
the official name change was a mid-point in that process. From a primary emphasis on
technically oriented undergraduate education in 1940, by 1965 Utah State’s commitments
to graduate education and research were major in virtually every academic area.”14 At
that time, Utah State University found it necessary to more fully engage in the research
process because that was the drive of the faculty and the need of its students and the cit-
izens of the state. In order for Utahns to compete in the global economy, Utah State rec-
ognized that technological and research skills were necessary components of a college
education. This created significant expansion of the University research in the last half of
the twentieth century, in both campus facilities and programs.
It is the phenomenal growth of the research programs that has both
spurred new construction and altered complexity. In the ten years from
1968 to 1978, outside funding for University-conducted research rose from
$2.8 million to almost $18 million. [From] 1978 to 1988 it more than tripled
again. New programs have accelerated the trend.15
82
USU sponsored research awards have continued to grow dramatically, reaching $162
million in 2003.
Although agriculture remained a mainstay of Utah State University research, other pro-
grams, necessitated by the needs of the state’s students, grew as well. One of Utah
State’s traditional roles became training public education teachers for the state.
Thousands of teachers have been taught and prepared at Utah State. The College of
Engineering developed a major role in irrigation, civil, electrical and mechanical engi-
neering, and also moved into the forefront of space research. Natural Resources
became a strong focus at USU, focusing on the sustainability of Utah’s precious land
and water resources.
Like the University of Utah, Utah State has also focused on maximizing the benefits of
its research. In 1986, Utah State established its research park. Now called Innovation
Campus, the park has become an economic hub of northern Utah. According to one his-
torian, Innovation Campus has brought the role of Utah State University full circle:
Where the first scientific experiments on the application of water to crops
and vegetables were conducted by the Experiment Station at the turn of
the century, the first buildings of the University’s new Research Park are
rising. In 1900 the contributions the College could make to a country where
most people lived on farms or in small towns were contributions to
agriculture. Today, while contributions to agriculture and agribusiness
continue, the spin offs of other research are in the fields of high technolo-
gy, and the acres that saw wooden sluices and measuring weirs now see
Research Park businesses.16
Throughout their history, neither the University of Utah nor Utah State University have
forgotten their mandates to serve Utah’s students as well as its citizens. This charter has
necessitated a variety of tactics: from housing the region’s only public library, to impart-
ing agricultural knowledge to the state’s farmers. Today, these two major universities
have evolved to best serve the needs of the state, by creating an innovative, collabora-
tive atmosphere that satisfies the intellectual and economic appetites of Utah’s citizens.
83
oday, with more than 50,000 students between them, the University of Utah and Utah
State University have come a long way from single-building campuses and their early
curricula. Both institutions are vigorously pursuing multifaceted missions of learning,
discovery, and engagement. With students, faculty, and a host of stakeholders taking part
in that mission, Utah now ranks 11 in the United States for the proportion of higher edu-
cation degrees to number of residents.1 Although both universities have contributed
greatly in higher education and research, new prospects of fulfillment in economic devel-
opment have yet to be fully realized.
Utah’s Research Universities
The University of Utah today is an academic powerhouse, offering more than 160 degree
programs to its 28,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Several of its programs are
ranked in the top 50 nationwide, including business, chemical and fuels engineering, and
computing.2 As the third-largest employer in the state, the University has more than
18,000 people on its monthly payroll and annually distributes more than $850 million in
salaries and benefits.3
Utah State University also is a nationally prominent institution with many highly recog-
nized degree programs, including agriculture, education, engineering, and natural
resources. Utah State offers more than 200 majors to its 24,000 students and has signifi-
cantly increased important research opportunities available to them. The University
drives northern Utah’s economy, providing more than 5,800 jobs to Utahns in the area. In
June, Consumer’s Digest rated Utah State as the sixth-best-value university in the United
States for cost in relation to educational quality, and was ranked second in affordability
by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.4
Both universities’ research programs have been very successful. In July 2004, then
Governor Olene Walker, along with Utah State President Kermit Hall and University of
Utah President Michael Young, announced the generation of $500 million in joint
CHAPTER 9:
The Impact of Utah’s Research Universities
TT
84
research revenues from the two universities. That represents the largest amount ever
garnered by the state. A large majority of this funding comes from the Federal govern-
ment and private industry, while the state provides less than one-tenth of total research
funding for the universities. State funding is often used as seed money to attract the
larger Federal grants.5
FY04 research funding for the University of Utah and Utah State University achieved
double digit percentage gains from the previous year, and doubled amounts compared
to a decade ago.6 Not only does this substantial growth of research funding support
cutting-edge knowledge being developed by university faculty and staff, but much of it is
spent within the state, which in turn boosts the overall economy. Every dollar invested in
research infrastructure–buildings and equipment–results in a $10 return in research
grants and other economic benefits to Utah.7
Increased research funding in Utah has stemmed from strong research programs that
both the University of Utah and Utah State University have developed. Although the suc-
cess of research programs is often measured by the money they bring in, they have also
created valuable opportunities for students and needed services for the state. Research
discoveries also result in the creation of technologies around which new businesses can
be built.
Research at the University of Utah
The University of Utah’s research accomplishments place
it squarely in the top 15 percent of America’s nearly 200
research institutions, creating many benefits for the state
in terms of research outcomes, economic development,
and human capital development.8 For example, more than
two-thirds of Utah’s doctors and pharmacists have
received all or part of their training at the University of
Utah, and more than three-quarters of U of U engineering
and MBA graduates stay in the state to pursue their
careers. Two of the University of Utah’s greatest strengths
are in the areas of biomedicine and computers.9
The University of
Utah’s research
accomplishments
place it squarely
in the top 15% of
America’s nearly
200 research
institutions.
85
Biomedical and Genetics Research: Creating Worldwide Results
The University of Utah’s biomedical and genetics research programs are among some of
the strongest in the nation. The U’s dominance in this field is bolstered by a host of cen-
ters, institutes and programs, including a state-of-the-art medical school, world-
renowned scientists, and one of the largest cancer study centers in the world. Work by
these U of U professionals has generated countless medical, scientific, and practical out-
comes. For example, University of Utah genetics researchers did the following—and
much more—in 2003:
� Found a new drug that can make the anticancer drug interleukin-2 more effective and
less toxic in patients with melanoma or kidney cancer.
� Discovered how the enzyme PKC gamma influences cells in a developing embryo to
move to either the right or left side of the body—a discovery that also has implica-
tions for how cancer cells spread or metastasize in cancer patients.
� Helped lead an international research team that discovered how children are protect-
ed from two of the deadliest forms of malaria when they carry a gene that lets them
produce high levels of nitric oxide.
� Led a study showing that people have longer life spans if they also have longer
telomeres, which are the ends of chromosomes that grow shorter during aging.
� Helped conduct a multi-center clinical trial that found premature births can be
reduced by up to one-third if the expectant mother received weekly injections of a
form of the hormone progesterone called hydroxyprogesterone caproate.
� Participated in a study that tested a new generation of cardiac pacemakers and com-
bined pacemaker-defibrillator devices on congestive heart failure patients nationwide.
The trial showed significant reductions in the risk of death among patients who used
the implanted devices as opposed to medication.
� Showed that by administering the neurotransmitter GABA to aging monkeys, their old
brain cells briefly were made to act young again. The study is an early step toward
the goal of helping elderly people by reversing age-related declines in vision, hearing,
memory and other skills.10
To maintain its prominence in genetics research, the University of Utah continues to grow its
programs. One example is the Brain Institute at the University of Utah, a major effort to unite
86
various fields of study, utilize the university’s research strengths and advance understanding
in one of science’s last frontiers. An ambitious plan calls for raising more than $100 million for
a new interdisciplinary research building and to finance the institute’s first five years of
research into the brain and brain disorders by an estimated 200-300 faculty and staff.
The University of Utah also focuses on engaging the public through outreach programs
aimed at sharing the results and importance of their research. For example, the Genetic
Science Learning Center was created to help teachers, students and others understand
how their lives and society are influenced by genetics. The center’s engaging, interactive
website covers everything from the basics of DNA to in-depth explorations of genetic
disorders, cloning, stem cell research and gene therapy. ScientificAmerican.com has
honored the website as one of the five best biology sites on the Internet. During 2002-
2003, Learning Center courses and workshops reached over 1,500 educational institu-
tions worldwide.11
Computational Research: Launching New Technologic and Economic Frontiers
The University of Utah has been a leader in computing and imaging research since the
beginning of the field of study. The U’s distinguished alumni in the computer field
include John Warnock, cofounder and board chairman of Adobe Systems; Alan Kay,
developer of the personal computer and a participant in the early design of ARPANet,
the forerunner of the Internet; Nolan Bushnell, father of the video game industry and
founder of Atari; Ed Catmull, cofounder and president of Pixar Animation Studios; Jim
Clark, cofounder of Silicon Graphics and Netscape; and Raymond J. Noorda, founder,
former president, and CEO of Novell.12
The University of Utah’s computing research strength
is maintained in several research centers, including the
Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute, a leader in
engineering and research in scientific computing, sci-
entific visualization and imaging. The institute has
solved computational and imaging problems in areas
such as medicine, geophysics, chemical engineering,
molecular dynamics, aerospace fluid mechanics, com-
bustion and atmospheric dispersion.
Accomplishmentsin research atUtah Stateare especiallypronounced inthe areas of space,land and water,and human services.
87
Research at Utah State University
Research at Utah State University involves and supports students, attracts external fund-
ing, leads to knowledge and technologies, and solves practical problems in the state, the
nation, and the world. USU faculty and student researchers are improving education,
services and the economy. Accomplishments in research at Utah State are especially pro-
nounced in the areas of space, land and water, and human services.
Space Research: An Opportunity in Education
Utah State University is designated not only as a land-grant university but also as one of
the first space-grant universities in the nation. Space research at Utah State includes
many programs within the College of Engineering, the College of Science and the
College of Agriculture, working in conjunction with the Space Dynamics Laboratory
(SDL), which is one of only ten University Affiliated Research Centers in the nation for
sensors and supporting technologies.
SDL applies basic research to the technology challenges presented in the military and
science arenas, developing revolutionary solutions that are changing the way the world
collects and uses data. SDL, the largest research center at USU, generated about $70 mil-
lion in research contracts in 2004. Researchers at SDL have enabled significant advances
in data compression and quality, developed real-time reconnaissance data visualization
equipment, and created thousands of successful sensors and subsystems for over 400
space-borne and aircraft-based payloads.13
Some of SDL’s current projects include the following:
� A series of satellite-based projects aimed at providing a better understanding of the
weather that will allow more accurate weather forecasts and early storm warnings.
� Research by the Center for Atmospheric and Space Sciences that studies atmosphere
in relation to Global Positioning Systems. The ionosphere specifically can foul up GPS
coordinates by tens of meters.
� LADA, an agricultural growth chamber in which cosmonauts grow vegetables. It is
currently operating aboard the International Space Station.
One of the most important contributions the space research program has made is the
creation of research opportunities for Utah State’s undergraduates. USU has sponsored a
number of projects that are almost totally student-developed: For example, Get-Away-
88
Specials, which are self-contained experiments sent into space on the Shuttle, have been
created entirely by students. In large part because of this student research, Utah State
University has earned the distinguished honor of having sent more experiments into
space than any university in the world.
Land and Water Research: Creating Solutions to Fundamental Problems
Utah State University was founded in 1888 as an agricultural college, but the global envi-
ronment has dramatically changed since then. While agricultural production, processing,
and distribution remains vital, Utah State’s research mission has expanded considerably
to address earth conservation, biotechnology, food safety detection, and cures for dis-
eases. Research about Utah’s natural resources also has evolved to best serve the needs
of the state.
Current initiatives in land and water research include the following:
� The Utah State University Water Initiative, an interdisciplinary partnership across the
multiple colleges and departments involved with water sciences and engineering at
Utah State University, designed to focus the intellectual leadership of the university
on integrated water planning that is critical for the Intermountain West.
� Integrated Water and Coastal Resources Management Indefinite Quantity Contract
(Water IQC), part of a $2 billion initiative to provide capacity to respond rapidly to
requests for services aimed at helping carry out the integrated water and coastal
resources management aspects of USAID development assistance programs.
� “Agrosecurity,” and homeland security more broadly, to devise solutions for the
United State vulnerability to naturally occurring events and acts of terrorism.
Agrosecurity issues are based on gaining a better understanding of potential threats
related to plant and animal production, marketing, and processing. Homeland security
efforts include the detection and elimination of harmful pathogens.
� Genomics, Proteomics, and Bioinformatics, which involves the study of cellular DNA,
protein, and computational methods of these studies. Research in these areas will
give scientists a better understanding of how biomolecular processes work, and how
they can be used for public health and economic benefits.
Land and water research at Utah State has resulted in practical benefits for the state for
over a century, and it has also created innovative technologies.
89
Education and Human Services Research: A Needed State Service
Utah State University’s College of Education and Human Services is another example of
excellence in learning, discovery, and engagement, including economic development.
One of the largest colleges of education in the nation, Utah State’s College of Education
and Human Services lists the following among its recent accolades:
� Ranked by U.S. News and World Report in the top tier of prestigious graduate schools
of education in the U.S. for the past five years—and most recently ranked 38th in a
field of over 1100 schools.
� Ranked fourth in the nation among colleges of education in external research dollars
generated—$181 million over the past ten years and $25 million in 2003-04.
� Top producer of early childhood, elementary, and special education teachers.14
Utah State University houses many of the nation’s most prominent education and human
services facilities and programs, including the Emma Eccles Jones Center for Early
Childhood Education, the Edith Bowen Laboratory School, the Center for the School of
the Future, and the Center for Persons with Disabilities.
The Center for Persons with Disabilities is one of 61 University Centers for Excellence in
Developmental Disabilities, Education, Research, and Services located at major universi-
ties throughout the United States. These programs provide leadership to support inde-
pendence of people with disabilities. For over 30 years, the CPD has focused major
efforts on the needs of Utah and of rural and underserved populations nationwide. The
CPD generates over $16 million annually. It houses over 70 projects, including the Early
Intervention Research Institute, the Reed F. Warren Biomedical Laboratories, the
Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center, the Utah Assistive Technology Program, and
WebAIM (research on accessible Internet technologies).15
Another example of research, technology, and outreach is the National Center for Hearing
Assessment and Management (NCHAM), which addresses the most common birth defect in
babies—hearing loss. NCHAM conducts cutting-edge research to improve screening methods
and equipment for testing the hearing of newborns, applies new knowledge about the genet-
ics of hearing loss to screening programs, extends the lessons learned in hospital-based new-
born hearing screening to early childhood programs, and determines how screening impacts
families. The center works with all hospitals in Utah, and hundreds of other hospitals across
the United States and in many other countries.
90
Both the University of Utah and Utah State University research produces knowledge out-
comes for the world, economic benefits for the state, and services for the community.
University research results are becoming even more vital as the seedcorn for future
businesses and economic growth.
University Research and EconomicDevelopment
On their own, the results of the University of Utah and
Utah State University’s research are impressive; when
combined with the resources needed to create practical
outcomes and technology commercialization, university
research is potentially revolutionary for the economic
vitality of the state. Evidences of the economic benefits
created by the University of Utah and Utah State
University are already apparent. They are seen in the
growth of patents, licensing, and royalties generated by university technology, and they
are manifest in the companies being created from some of those inventions and ideas.
The University of Utah
The University of Utah has utilized the economic strength of research longer than almost
any other institution in the nation. In 1968, the U became just the sixth university in the
United States to initiate a technology transfer program. Today, University technologies
create thousands of jobs and generate hundreds of millions in investment each year.
More than 90 percent of the jobs and 77 percent of the investments remain in Utah.16
Almost 60 new companies have started from University of Utah technology in the past
decade alone, the vast majority of which have stayed in Utah. Some of the companies
generated with the help of the U’s Technology Transfer Office include:
� Evans & Sutherland: One of the oldest university spin-offs, it was co-founded in
1968 by David Evans, who also started the U’s computer science program. Known for
flight simulators and other virtual reality products, the company generated $84 mil-
lion in revenue last year.
� Myriad Genetics: Founded by former U geneticist Mark Skolnick, the company focuses
on identifying disease-causing genes and producing medicines through alliances with
pharmaceutical companies. Myriad uses genetic technology licensed from the University.
Evidences ofthe economicbenefits createdby the Universityof Utah andUtah StateUniversity arealready apparent.
91
� Iomed Inc.: Iomed produces non-invasive drug delivery systems, including a product
that delivers medication through the skin using a mild electric charge instead of a needle.
Founded in 1974, Iomed is based on engineering and bioengineering research at the U.
� Sarcos Inc.: Sarcos has licensed many technologies from the University and is
involved in robotic systems for industry and entertainment, artificial limbs and other
medical devices, and various mechanical and electronic microsystems.
� TerraTek Inc.: An engineering company founded in 1969, the company provides
research testing and equipment for the oil and gas industry.
� TheraTech: Founded in 1985, the company is a leader in the development of innova-
tive products based on controlled release drug delivery technologies, such as patches
and mild electric pulses.17
Many of these companies are located at the University of Utah Research Park, which lies
adjacent to campus on 320 acres of ancient Lake Bonneville shoreline. The park houses
44 companies, 37 academic departments and approximately 6,300 employees in 35 build-
ings. Research Park companies have added more than 4,700 jobs to the state’s economy,
and the annual in-state productivity of park residents exceeds $600 million. The park
provides a special environment for entrepreneurial growth. It is a reservoir of practical
research and business opportunities for university faculty and both graduate and under-
graduate students.18
The University of Utah has engaged in other initiatives to bring the results of university
research to the consumer market. Technology to Market (T2M) is an alliance of the
University and other public and private organizations designed to create a non-profit
business accelerator for high-tech companies. The alliance provides start-up businesses
with capital, management, advisors, and other consolidated resources. Also, the
Lassonde New Venture Development Center teaches Utah students skills needed to
assess business opportunities associated with scientific discoveries and innovations
emerging from University of Utah labs. Coached by experienced entrepreneurs, Lassonde
Center students work with scientists and inventors to understand possible applications
for a discovery and define the true market value.19
Utah State University
New ideas and technologies initiated by Utah State University researchers also have cre-
ated profitable products and businesses. Nearly 60 companies had their beginnings in
92
USU research. These companies generate more than $300 million in taxable revenues,
employ 2,000 people, and help create an infrastructure of high-tech businesses throughout
the state. Overall, Utah State University research has influenced the creation of more
than 10,000 jobs and has brought millions of dollars into the state. Some examples of
companies started from USU technology include:
� HyClone Laboratories: A worldwide leader in fetal bovine serum production and
other media-related product, the company employs over 500 people in Utah and 700
worldwide.
� Campbell Scientific: Campbell has produced and sold over 100,000 dataloggers
throughout the world and has about 200 employees at its headquarters in Logan,
Utah.
� Wescor: Wescor develops, manufactures, and markets high quality instrumentation and
other products for medicine, science, and industry. The company employs more than 50
scientific, engineering, design, business, marketing, and sales professionals in Logan, Utah.
The use of Utah State research for economic development is reflected at its research
park, now known as Innovation Campus. Established in 1986, the campus is home to
some 50 companies with about 2,000 employees. The average annual salary of non-
students employed at Innovation Campus is $65,000, which is 25 percent higher than the
area’s median family income. Efforts by Innovation Campus to create a high-tech hub in
rural Utah have been nationally recognized by the U.S. Department of Commerce, which
awarded it one of seven “Excellence in Economic Development” awards. This spring,
Innovation Campus won the 2004 national award for “Rural Economic Development.”
Innovation Campus is increasing its vital role in the region, and in the coming years, it
will do it on a much larger scale. With fourteen existing buildings and three more under
construction, Innovation Campus is growing rapidly as a center of research and econom-
ic activity in Cache Valley; it may well employ as many people as Utah State University
(currently the valley’s largest employer) in the coming decades. Innovation Campus’
recently-completed master plan will guide growth at the campus over the next 40 years
to bring it from its current 38 acres to over 150 acres by full build-out.
Research Partnerships and Programs
The University of Utah and Utah State University have taken steps to create research
partnerships aimed at sharing resources to attract funding, create better outcomes, and
93
more efficiently benefit the state. More than 100 faculty members at the U and USU have
created partnerships in their research and entrepreneurial efforts.
Partnership in Human DNA Research
Utah’s two research universities are working to reduce the burden of conditions of aging
one of the nation’s largest health and economic concerns. These efforts will position the
state as a leader in medicine, public health, and biotechnology, and will build a founda-
tion for sustained economic growth over the coming years.
Recently the University of Utah and the Huntsman Cancer Institute (HCI) applied for a
new joint grant from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute on Aging to
create the Utah Program on Aging and Cancer (UPAC). This program combines the usu-
ally disparate areas of cancer research and research on the elderly to build new in-roads
into geriatric cancer studies.
The UU-HCI UPAC project leaders have invited participation from researchers from the
USU Center for Epidemiologic Studies to augment its extensive cancer research. As one
of the largest long-term aging studies, the Cache County cohort provides a unique
resource for UPAC researchers and will support Utah’s continued position as a leader in
cancer research.
Partnership in Infectious Disease Studies
Utah State University and the University of Utah are partnering together in cancer and
infectious disease studies to win large Federal grants and establish our state as a princi-
pal player in cancer, viral and biodefense research. By jointly applying for selected
grants, Utah’s research universities are able to combine their effectiveness as both a
medical and genetics powerhouse and as a leader for therapies of viral diseases.
Partnering together, the University of Utah and Utah State University have applied for
Federal funding for new magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment. The University of
Utah applied for a grant from the National Cancer Institute that would fund a Core
Facility for MRI of small animals, and Utah State enhanced the need by combining its
support. The U and USU also are collaborating with Colorado to become a Regional
Center of Excellence in biodefense research.
94
Through these partnerships, the University of Utah and Utah State University will gain
an advantage in research competition, allowing them to win even more multi-million
dollar Federal grants that will lead to marketable technologies, companies, and jobs.
Other Partnerships
Other recent examples of collaborations between the U and USU include:
� Dr. Ray Reutzel of Utah State University and Jan Dole, Emily Swan, and John Hosp of
the University of Utah are working together to develop, deliver, and evaluate Utah’s
reading First Grant, a $42 million project.
� USU’s Dr. Karl White and John C. Carey M.D. of the U of U School of Medicine are col-
laborating on a $22 million NIH project studying hearing loss in infants and young chil-
dren.
� Mathematics researchers Dr. Lajos Horvath (University of Utah) and Dr. Piotr Kokoszka
have been long-time colleagues; together they have published 18 papers and have
received two NATO grants and one NSF grant.
� Dr. Sarah Rule (USU) and Dr. Jan Day work together on statewide preparation of early
childhood specialists and K-12 teachers in vision and hearing impairments.
� Utah State University has had a relationship with the University of Utah on the stu-
dent-involved Unity IV rocket project since 1991.
The University of Utah and Utah State University have become world-renowned in their
research efforts in biomedicine, genetics, computation, space, land and water, and edu-
cation and human services. After decades of development, these prolific research pro-
grams are now nearing potential payoffs. If Utah policymakers act decisively, Utah’s
research outcomes may become the state’s economic windfall.
95
inds of change are stirring in the national economy. In the past few years,
issues of high-technology, globalization, recession, and recovery have
changed the way we think about and do business, and have clearly shown
that states wishing to be competitive in the new
economy must stay abreast of the changes—or fall
behind. Utah, too, is at the tipping point. We must
choose now—between stagnation and investment—
and set the path for Utah’s economic future.
The goal, of course, is clear: continuing economic
prosperity. But the path to long-term economic pros-
perity in Utah still awaits an action plan. It is not that the
path is vague. Urban planner and economics professor
Richard Florida argues compellingly in his book The Rise
of the Creative Class that major research universities are
a basic infrastructure component for a state’s competitive advantage in the future—more
important than canals, railroads and freeway systems that drove growth in past periods
of prosperity.
An important recent analysis, the Employers’ Education Coalition report, distinguishes
Utah’s Research 1 institutions as significantly, and importantly, different than other insti-
tutions in Utah because their economic return-on-investment is critically different than
those institutions. Simply put, the state’s Research 1 universities already bring home
close to a half billion federal dollars each year for the citizens of Utah
It should be clear that merely planting a research university in the middle of a desert will
not lead to knowledge-based economic growth. The strategies that university, policy and
business leaders employ, can affect how well a region can appropriate the returns from
university RD&E investments.
CONCLUSION:
At the Brink of Utah’s Economic Future
WWStates wishing to
be competitive in
the new economy
must stay abreast
of the changes—
or fall behind.
96
Utah’s future is not stalled; in fact, this is a time for optimism. But now also is a time
to make decisions. Utah has the proven university firepower to champion its eco-
nomic future and to make the state competitive with any other in the nation. Utah’s
business leaders are working hard to ensure a prosperous economic future for the
citizens of the state, and they are leading the call to action at this important time.
The business community has promised to share the investment bill because it, per-
haps most directly, will share the payoffs down the road. But the entire state will
share in the profits of this investment.
And the word “share” is key to the conversation. Long-term economic growth
means that prosperity will be shared with all of Utah’s citizens. We must make
this investment now to ensure that Utah wins its fair share of tomorrow’s job wars.
98
Endnotes
CHAPTER 11 Utah History Encyclopedia, “Central Utah Project,” 1994.
<http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/c/CENTRALUTAH.html>.
2 Utah History To Go, “Interstate 70,” 1994, <http://historytogo.utah.gov/i70.html>.
3 Deseret News, “Leavitt seeks increase in gas tax for I-15 repairs,” from Lexis-Nexis, September 27, 1996.
4 Karl Cates, “Lawmakers Set Aside Funds for I-15, Bangerter Highway,” Deseret News, from Lexis-Nexis,February 29, 1996.
5 Amy Joi Bryson, “Gas-tax opinions flood capitol,” Deseret News, from Lexis-Nexis, January 12, 2003.
6 Zack Van Eyck, “Lawmakers tackle road-project funding,” Deseret News, Lexis-Nexis, May 13, 2004.
7 John Keahey, “S.L. to deliver hard sell for 2002 Winter Games,” Salt Lake Tribune, 23 January 1995, A3.
8 John Keahey, “IOC gives Utah bid gold stars report makes S.L. leader of olympic pack, for now IOC reportgives Utah bid gold stars,” Salt Lake Tribune, sec. A1, Lexis-Nexis, December 21, 1994.
9 Mike Gorrell, “Winter Olympics funding bill for SLOC breezes by Senate,” Salt Lake Tribune,5 March 1997, A6.
10 Salt Lake Tribune, “Private dollars, public dream: here’s who bankrolled the bid,” 18 June 1995, A11.
11 State of Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2002 Olympic Winter Games: Economic,Demographic, and Fiscal Impacts, State of Utah, November 2000, 3.
12 State of Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 3
13 American City Business Journals, Quality of Life Rankings, Bizsites.com [n.d.]<http://www.bizsites.com/toolkit/qol_rankings/quality_of_life_rankings.html>.
CHAPTER 21 Utah Foundation, The 2004 Utah Priorities Poll: The Top Issues and Concerns of Utahns for the 2004
Gubernatorial Election, March 2004, 1.
2 Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2004 Economic Report to the Governor, State of Utah,January 2004, 2.
3 James A. Wood, “The Utah Economy: A Review and Outlook,” Utah Economic and Business Review,January/February 2004, 1.
4 Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 3.
5 Utah Foundation Research Brief, May 2004.
6 Jennifer K. Nii, “Job Growth in Utah Tops 2003 by 3%,” Deseret Morning News, 20 October 2004,<http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,595099418,00>.
7 Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 15.
8 Jenifer K. Nii, “Salt Lake a Good Fit for Tech,” Deseret Morning News, 16 September 2004, E1.
9 Wood, 1.
99
10 Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2.
11 Pamela S. Perlich, “Demographic Trends Affecting Public Education in Utah,” Utah Economic and BusinessReview, November/December 2000.
12 Perlich, 9.
13 Daphne Borromeo, “Utah Improves in Preparing Students for College But Not In Enrolling Them In HigherEducation,” State News Summary, September 15, 2004.<http://measuringup.highereducation.org/statedir.cfm?myyear=2004&stateName=Utah>.
14 Utah’s School Age and College Age Population Boom, “College Age Population,”<http://governor.utah.gov/dea/ERG/ERG2003/23.School-AgeBoom.PDF>, (accessed October 7, 2004).
15 Steven Levy, “The Hot New Tech Cities,” Newsweek, 9 November 1998, 45.
16 Levy.
CHAPTER 31 Brice Wallace, “Utah’s Grip on High Tech Slipping,” Deseret Morning News, 22 August 2003,
<http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,510048676,00.html>.
2 Matt Asay, “Who Speaks for Tech,” Connect, 8 November 2003, <http://www.connect-utah.com/article.asp?r=166&iid=16&sid>.
3 Rich Nelson, “UITA Tech Industry Study,” Connect, 14 November 2003, <http://www.connect-utah.com/arti-cle.asp?r=174&iid=16&sid>.
4 Wallace, “Utah’s Grip on High Tech Slipping.”
5 Ross DeVol and Perry Wong. America’s High-Tech Economy: Growth, Development and Risks forMetropolitan Areas (Santa Monica, CA: Milken Institute, 1999), 2.
6 Lisa Carricaburu and Lesley Mitchell, “Rolling Down the Line: High-Tech Shakeout,” The Salt Lake Tribune,3 December 2000, A1.
7 Lisa Carricaburu, “Utah Slowly Slips Off Map of Tech Hubs,” The Salt Lake Tribune,8 February 2004, E1.
8 Carricaburu.
9 Carricaburu
10 W.E. Pete Peterson, Almost Perfect, Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing, 1994, 1.
11 Harvard Business School, “Raymond J. Noorda,” 20th Century Great American Business Leaders, n.d.,<http://www.hbs.edu/leadership/database/leaders/567/>.
12 Carricaburu.
13 Adobe, “Corporate Backgrounder,” Adobe Pressroom,<http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/companyprofile.html> (Accessed 8 October 2004.)
14 Pixar, “Meet the Execs,” Pixar, <http://www.pixar.com/companyinfo/aboutus/mte.html#edcatmull>(Accessed 6 October 2004).
15 Nelson.
100
16 State of Utah Department of Community and Economic Development, “Program Highlights,” Centers ofExcellence, <http://dced.utah.gov/techdev/highlights.html> (Accessed 4 October 2004).
17 Carricaburu.
18 Brice Wallace, “Utah High-Tech Sites Mapped,” Deseret Morning News, 10 January 2002,<http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,365006922,00.html>.
19 Steven Levy, “The Hot New Tech Cities,” Newsweek, 9 November 1998, 45.
20 Paul Beebe, “Leavitt’s Silicon Valley Initiative Bearing Little Fruit,” The Salt Lake Tribune,5 August 2001, E1.
21 Wallace, “Utah’s Grip on High-Tech Slipping.”
22 Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2004 Economic Report to the Governor, State of Utah,January 2004, 2.
23 Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 1.
24 James A. Wood, “The Utah Economy: A Review and Outlook,” Utah Economic and Business Review,January/February 2004, 1.
25 Mark Knold, “High Technology Downturn in Utah: Tracing Utah’s High Technology Industries and theirRelation to the Recession,” Utah Department of Workforce Services, 9 August 2004,<http://jobs.utah.gov/wi/pubs/HiTechReport.pdf>.
26 Wallace, “Utah’s Grip on High-Tech Slipping.”
27 Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget.
28 Nelson.
29 David L. Politis, “Funds Flowing to Utah’s High-Tech Firms,” Deseret Morning News, 21 July 2003,<http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,510040796,00.html>.
30 Utah Technology Alliance, “Fund of Funds- HB 240 Venture Capital Enhancement Act,” Utah Department ofCommunity and Economic Development, < http://techalliance.utah.gov/fundoffunds.html> (Accessed 8October 2004).
31 Ross DeVol, Perry Wong, Armen Bedroussian, Lorna Wallace, Junghoon Ki, Daniela Murphy and RobKoepp, Biopharmaceutical Industry Contributions to State and U.S. Economies, (Santa Monica, CA: MilkenInstitute, 1999), 4.
32 DeVol et al, 1.
33 Myriad Genetics Inc, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results ofOperations,” Annual Report, 10 September 2004. <http://biz.yahoo.com/e/040910/mygn10-k.html>.
34 Myriad Genetics, Inc., “About Myriad,” Myriad Genetics, Inc.,<http://www.myriad.com/corporate/index.htm> (accessed October 5, 2004).
35 Myriad Genetics, Inc., “Working at Myriad,” Myriad Genetics, Inc. <http://www.myriad.com/careers/work-ing.htm> (accessed October 5, 2004).
36 Charly Travers, “Myriad’s Making Hope Possible,” Motley Fool, 19 August 2004.<http://biz.yahoo.com/fool/040819/1092940740_2.html>.
37 TheraTech, Inc., “Mission Statement,” Informegan, <http://informagen.com/RI/index.php?mrn=3351>(accessed October 5, 2004).
101
38 Connect Magazine, September 2004.
39 Russ DeVol and Rob Koepp, State Technology and Science Index: Enduring Lessons for the IntangibleEconomy, (Santa Monica, CA: Milken Institute, 2004), 2.
40 DeVol and Keopp, 4
41 DeVol and Koepp, 35.
CHAPTER 41 Wallace.
2 Huntsman for Governor, John Hunstsman, Jr.’s Plan for Economic Revitalization for Utah, April 2004,<http://www.votehuntsman.com/downloads/pdf/Economic-Plan.pdf>.
3 Shinika A. Sykes, “A ‘tough’ higher ed budget,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 12 December 2003, C1.
4 Utah Information Technology Association. “Utah Governor Olene Walker and Prominent Business LeadersOutline Growth Initiatives for Utah Technology Industry,” 16 August 2004,<http://www.uita.org/press/2004/aug-16.htm>.
5 Utah Information Technology Association.
6 Shinika A. Sykes, “Universities saluted as engines of economy,” The Salt Lake Tribune 30 July 2004, B5.
7 Mary Jane Collipriest, “Bennett Receives Legislator of the Year Award,” U.S. Senator Bob Bennett, 5 June2001, <http://www.senate.gov/~bennett/press/record.cfm?id=224851>.
8 The Brookings Institution, Keeping the Good Times Rolling: Technology and the Global Economy, 10October 2000, <http://www.senate.gov/~bennett/issues/documents/THE_BROOKINGS_INSTITUTION.pdf>, 4.
9 E. J. “Jake” Garn, “Don’t Shortchange Higher Education [editorial],” Deseret News, 13 February 1997, A30.
10 Jeff Call, “High-Tech Hopes for Beehive State,” Deseret Morning News, 10 May 2004,<http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,595061678,00.html>.
11 Michael T. Benson, “Utahns should invest in higher education [editorial],” Deseret Morning News, 29December 2003.
12 David Buhler, “Regents Chair Nolan Karras Links Economic Development to Higher Education in Speech tothe Economic Development Corporation of Utah Annual Meeting,” Utah System of Higher Education, 5August 2003, <http://www.utahsbr.edu/PressRelease/PR_2003/PR_Aug05_2003.pdf>.
13 Amelia Nielson-Stowell, “Higher Ed Chief Notes Funding Not Keeping Pace,” Deseret Morning News, 7July 2004, <http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,595075512,00.html>.
14 A. Scott Anderson, “Research Universities Fuel Utah’s Economy,” The Enterprise Special Report, 23 August2004, 6.
15 The Enterprise Special Report, “An Educated Workforce: The Key to a Strong Economy,” 23 August 2004,16.
16 Kelly K. Matthews, “The University of Utah: An Economic Lynchpin,” The Enterprise Special Report, 23August 2004, 9.
17 David L. Politis, “Technology—It Can be a Love-Hate Relationship,” Deseret Morning News, 10 August2004.
102
18 The Enterprise Special Report, “Technology Transfer: Turing Ideas into Profits,” 23 August 2004, 13.
19 Colin Kelly, Jr., “Point of View: Jack Sunderlage,” Connect, 23 June 2004, <http://www.connect-utah.com/article.asp?r=412&iid=23&sid>.
20 Deseret News, “Why Higher Ed is Important [editorial],” Deseret News, 25 July 2002, A28.
21 Deseret News, “Don’t Shortchange U.S. Research [editorial],” Deseret News, 6 September 1995, A10.
22 The Salt Lake Tribune, “Universities Invaluable [editorial],”13 February 1997, A12.
23 The Daily Herald, “In Our View: Roads can’t suffer for education [editorial],” The Daily Herald, 17 December2003.
24 The Daily Herald, “In Our View: Give colleges the power to progress [editorial],” The Daily Herald, 1 March2004.
25 The Standard Examiner, “Tuition sticker-shock hits Utah universities [editorial],” The Standard Examiner,15 September 2004.
26 The Standard Examiner, “Utah’s incentives for businesses are weak [editorial],” The Standard Examiner, 7November 2002.
CHAPTER 51 Office of the President, Arizona State University, The Economic Benefits from Investment in University
Based Research, Development and Education (Tempe, AZ: ASU, n.d.), 5.
2 Economic Benefits, 5.
3 Economic Benefits, 7.
4 Ross DeVol and Perry Wong. America’s High-Tech Economy: Growth, Development and Risks forMetropolitan Areas (Santa Monica, CA: Milken Institute, 1999), 2.
5 Chris Freeman and Luc Soete, The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd Edition, (Cambridge, MA: MITPress, 1997), 316.
6 Economic Benefits, 19.
7 Economic Benefits, 19.
8 Office of Public Affairs and Office of University Initiatives, Arizona State University, Investing in Arizona’sFuture (Tempe, AZ: ASU, n.d.), 9.7.
9 Economic Benefits, 19.
10 Ross DeVol and Perry Wong, 6.
11 Bruce Kirchhoff et al., The Influence of R&D Expenditures on New Firm Formation and Economic Growth(Maplewood, NJ: BJK Associates, 2002), 24.
12 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 7.
13 Kirchhoff et al, 3.
14 Kirchhoff et al., 2.
15 DeVol and Wong, 13.
103
16 Economic Benefits, 13.
17 Kirchhoff et al., 24.
18 Economic Benefits, 14.
19 Mackun.
20 Paul Mackun, “Silicon Valley and Route 128: Two Faces of the American Technopolis nvesting,” InternetValley (n.d.) <http://www.internetvalley.com/archives/mirrors/sv&128.html> (11 Sept. 2004).
21 Richard Rosan, “The Key Role of Universities in Our Nation’s Economic Growth and Urban Revitalization,”Urban Land Institute, 2002, <http://experts.uli.org/content/whoswho/officers/rosan/rosan_C7.htm>.
22 DeVol and Wong, 3.
23 DeVol and Wong, 6.
24 DeVol and Wong, 6.
25 Rosan
26 Paul Judge, “Boston’s Route 128: Complementing Silicon Valley,” Business Week, 13 August 1997, <http://www.businessweek.com/1997/34/b354197.htm>.
27 Research Triangle Park, About Us: Park History, 2004, <http://www.rtp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page&file-name=about_us_history.html> (11 Sept. 2004).
28 Rochester International Council, New Technology/High Technology, n.d., <http://www.rifc.org/ivtech.html>(11 Sept. 2004).
29 City of San Diego, Technology and Development, n.d., <http://www.sannet,gov/economic-development/business-assistance/techanddev/> (11 Sept. 2004).
30 Robert Dynes, “State’s competitiveness starts at research universities,” San Francisco Chronicle, 23 April2004.
31 “Deep in the Heart of Texas”, The Economist, 27 Mar. 1997,<http://www.economist.com/surveys/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_ID=366803> (11 Sept. 2004).
32 Rosan.
33 DeVol and Wong, 8.
34 DeVol and Wong, 8.
35 Kenneth Bartlett, “Towards a True Community of Scholars: Undergraduate Research in the ModernUniversity,” Journal of Molecular Structure 666 (Dec. 2003): 707.
36 R. Eric Landrum and Lisa R. Nelsen, “The Undergraduate Research Assistantship: An Analysis of theBenefits,” Teaching of Psychology 29.1 (2002): 17.
37 Jeffrey Mervis, “Student Research: What is It Good For?,” Science, 293.5535 (2001): 1614.
38 Mervis, 1615.
39 John W. Moore, “The Boyer Report,” Journal of. Chemical Education. 1998 (75) p. 935.
104
CHAPTER 61 House of Representatives Committee on Science, Statement of the Honorable John Marburger, III, Director
of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 13 February 2000,<http://www.house.gov/science/full02/feb13/marburger.htm>.
2 Eric Berger, “Cloudy Skies for Biomedical Research; Scientists Fret over Funding Cuts Just 4 Years afterBudget was Doubled,” Star Edition, 7 Sept. 2004, A1.
3 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 7.
4 Dee Ann Divis, “Basic Research Funds Face Years of Cuts,” United Press International, 28 July 2004.
5 Jeff Nesmith, “Innovation Being Squeezed from Federal Budget,” Cox News Service, 14 May 2004.
6 Jeffrey Brainard and Anne Marie Borrego, “Bush Budget Offers Small Increases for Science, and SomeCuts,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 13 February 2004, 24.
7 Dave Goldston, “Rep. Boehlert to Adress Universities Research Group in Washington,” SpaceRef.com, 30January 2001, <http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=3712>.
8 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 12.
9 Richard M. Jones, “Dividing Up The S&T Portfolio: Remarks of Senator Domenici,” FYI: The AIP Bulletin ofScience Policy News, 18 March 2004, <http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/033.html>.
10 Kevin Schweers, “Senator Hutchison Announces Leap in Federal Funding for Texas Universities,” KayBailey Hutchison Website, 20 February 2003, <http://hutchison.senate.gov/prl433.htm>.
11 Lieberman, Joe, “Growing the Innovation Economy: A New Strategy for A New Prosperity [speech],”Remarks at University of California San Diego, 28 May 2003, <http://www-irps.ucsd.edu/about/Speeches/lieberman.pdf>.
12 “Senate Approves Agriculture Funding,” Patty Murray’s Washington View, 7 November 2003, < http://mur-ray.senate.gov/news/031107-waview.pdf>.
13 Pat Roberts, Speech to the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC),Washington, DC: NASULGC, 13 November 2001, <http://www.nasulgc.org/CRPGE/CRPGE%20AM%202001/AM2001_CRPGE_Sen_Roberts_spch.pdf>.
14 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 12.
15 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 12.
16 Lomi Kriel, “Republican physics lover likely for UT: U.S. Representative Lamar Smith advocates nanotech-nology research,” Daily Texan Online, 24 October 2003,<http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2003/10/24/TopStories/Republican.Physics.Lover.Likely.For.Ut.U.Representative.Lamar.Smith.Advocates-538248.shtml>.
17 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 13.
18 Betsy Boyd, “Senator Ron Wyden Recognized as ‘Champion of Science’ at University of Oregon,” ScienceBlog, 18 August 2003, <http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/K/0/pub0603.html>.
19 U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, Road Map for National Security: Imperative forChange, 15 February 2001, <http://www.nssg.gov/PhaseIIIFR.pdf>, ix.
20 U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, ix.
21 U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, ix.
105
22 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 12.
23 Alan Greenspan, “Structural Change in the New Economy [speech],” Federal Reserve, 11 July 2000,<http://www.Federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2000/20000711.htm>.
24 Alan Greenspan, “Education [speech at the International Understanding Award Dinner, Institute ofInternational Education, New York, New York],” Federal Reserve, 29 October 2002,<http://www.Federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021029/default.htm>.
25 Greenspan, “Structural Change.”
26 Greenspan, “Structural Change.”
27 Greenspan, “Structural Change.”
28 Greenspan, “Structural Change.”
29 Greenspan, “Structural Change.”
30 Greenspan, “Structural Change.”
31 Greenspan, “Structural Change.”
32 National Science Foundation, “NSF Survey of R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, 1993-2002”WebCASPAR, 17 September 2004, <http://webcaspar.gov>.
33 Daniel J. Evans and Booth Gardner, “Higher Ed Jeopardized by Rickety Foundation,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 12 January 2003.
34 “Microsoft Research Faculty Summit: Fostering the Virtuous Cycle of University-Industry Partnership,”Microsoft.com, 2 August 2004, <http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2004/Aug04/08-02FacultySummit.asp>.
35 Bill Gates, “Remarks by Bill Gates, Chairman and Chief Software Architect, Microsoft Corporation MicrosoftResearch Faculty Summit 2003 [speech],” Microsoft.com, 28 July 2003, < http://www.microsoft.com/bill-gates/speeches/2003/07-28facultysummit.asp>.
36 “It’s Academic: Microsoft Research Collaboration Projects Fuel Technology Innovation at Universities,”Microsoft.com, 28 July 2003, <http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2003/jul03/07-28MSRCollaboration.asp>.
37 “Microsoft Research Faculty Summit.”
38 “It’s Academic.”
39 Fyffe.
40 “How Successful Companies Innovate,” Business and Finance, 6 December 2001, 48.
41 Lefkowitz, 52.
42 Going Global: The New Shape of American Innovation, Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness,September 1998, 2.
43 “UMass, IBM Call for Academic—Industry Partnership to Drive Innovation,” IBM Investor Relations PressRoom, 14 April 2004, <http://www.ibm.com/investor/press/apr-2004/14-04-04-2.phtml>.
44 Fyffe.
45 Ross Perot, The Dollar Crisis, 2 July 1996, 133-134.
106
46 “Innovative partnerships: Case Western Reserve University research event shows off possibilities for inno-vative entrepreneurs,” Inside Business, April 2004, 34.
47 Steven Fyffe, “Federal Funding Cuts Cause Electronics Brain Drain;Government research funding crisis endangers industry, SIA says,” Electronic News, 30 April 2001, 4.
48 Chappell Brown, “Universities seen as nurturing nanotech growth — Academe, not industry, will propel gains,Intel research chief says; asks more funds,” Electronic Engineering Times, 15 March 2004, 10.
CHAPTER 71 Rob Melnick, Rick Heffernon, and Nancy Welch, “Seeds of Prosperity: Public Investment in Science and
Technology Research,” Morrison Institute for Public Policy, 2003, 5.
2 Michael M. Crow. A New American University: The New Gold Standard [policy paper]. Tempe, AZ: ArizonaState University, 2002, 1.
3 Crow, 8.
4 Crow, 8.
5 Melnick, Heffernon, and Welch, 4.
6 Rick Heffernon, Nancy Welch, and Walter Valdivia, New Returns on Investment in the Knowledge Economy:Proposition 301 at Arizona State University, FY 2003. Tempe, AZ: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, 2003, 1.
7 Melnick, Heffernon, and Welch, 18.
8 Skip Derra, “AzBio’s ‘Design’ Goes Way Beyond Biotech,” ASU Insight, 19 September 2003, B1.
9 Gary Campbell, “ASU Plans Buildings, Strategy to Triple Research Capacity,” ASU Insight, 19 September2003, B1.
10 Heffernon, Welch, and Valdivia, 10.
11 Melnick, Heffernon, and Welch, 9.
12 Office of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Investing in Arizona’s Future, (Tempe, AZ: ASU, n.d.) 23.
13 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 23.
14 Agence France Presse, “Californians to vote on 3-billion-dollar stem cell research initiative,” Lexis-Nexis, 4July 2004.
15 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 23.
16 Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, “Biomedical Research Initiatives in Other States,” Oklahoma MedicalResearch Foundation, <http://www.omrf.org/OMRF/News_Releases/PresidentsNewsPage/BioMedicalA.asp>(accessed October 4, 2004).
17 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 23.
18 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 23.
19 Jacob Dipietre, “Governor Bush recommends $20 million for additional Centers of Excellence,” FloridaDepartment of Education, 9 January 2004, <http://www.fldoe.org/news/2004/2004_01_09.asp>.
20 Win Phillips, D.Sc. Vice President for Research, “Research and Economic Development at the University ofFlorida,” University of Florida, 3. <http://www.fldoe.org/BOG/meetings/2003_12_03/Profile_UF.pdf>.
107
21 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 24.
22 Augusta Chronicle, “State of the state address/Perdue tackles budget/schools,” A01, Lexis-Nexis, 15January 2004.
23 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 25.
24 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 26.
25 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 26.
26 Lisa Eckelbecker, “UMass venture fund set; $1M dedicated to tech projects,” Telegram & Gazette, 7February 2004, B6, Lexis-Nexis.
27 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 29.
28 Jim McCartney, “Selling of biotech initiative to have new focus,” St. Paul Pioneer Press, 20 January 2004,Lexis-Nexis.
29 Associated Press State & Local Wire, “A look at proposed university bonding projects,” 19 April 2004,Lexis-Nexis.
30 Martin Van Der Werf, “Legislative leaders pitch bond proposal for life sciences at UM/$190.4 million wouldhelp create new research centers,” The Post-Dispatch, 30 December 2003, B1.
31 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 30.
32 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 30.
33 New Jersey Commission on Higher Education, “Higher Education Technology and Research: CreatingExcellence Through State Investments,” March 2004, 1,<http://www.state.nj.us/highereducation/TechReportMar04.pdf>.
34 Jennifer Kohlhepp, “Initiative encourages local tech sector growth, No. Brunswick one of three N.J. areasincluded in Innovation Zones.” <http://nbs.gmnews.com/news/2004/0916/Front_Page/007.html>.
35 Higher Education Technology and Research: Creating Excellence through State Investments, 33.
36 Higher Education Technology and Research: Creating Excellence through State Investments, 15.
37 The Albuquerque Tribune, Voters Give to Schools, The Associated Press,<http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news02/110602_news_bonds.shtml> (accessed November 4, 2004).
38 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 32.
39 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 33
40 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 34.
41 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 34.
42 The Ohio 3rd Frontier Project, <http://www.thirdfrontier.com/overview.asp>, accessed November 3, 2004.
43 The Ohio 3rd Frontier Project.
44 Maria Smith, Johnson Unveils Innovation Ohio Loan Fund, Ohio Department of Development, November24, 2003, <http://www.thirdfrontier.com/documents/11.24.03InnovationOhio.pdf>.
45 Ohio Department of Development, InnOHvate, September 2004,<http://www.thirdfrontier.com/documents/innOHvate-0409-FINAL.pdf>, accessed November 4, 2004.
108
46 The Journal Record, “Research, training key to growth for Oklahoma’s biotech sector,” 27 October 2003,Lexis-Nexis.
47 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 35.
48 Greg Bolt, “University of Oregon thinks small with big nanotechnology research center,” The RegisterGuard, 26 April 2004, Lexis-Nexis.
49 Bolt.
50 Russ DeVol and Rob Koepp, State Technology and Science Index: Enduring Lessons for the IntangibleEconomy, (Santa Monica, CA: Milken Institute, 2004), 2.
51 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 35.
52 Memphis Biotech Foundation, The UT/Baptist Research Park,<http://www.memphisbiotech.org/page.cfm?pageid=81> (accessed November 4, 2004).
53 Investing in Arizona’s Future, 36.
54 The News Tribune, “Biotech industry is the big prize of the 21st century, state lawmakers should provideimportant incentives,” 23 January 2004, B06.
CHAPTER 81 John Clifton Moffit, John Rocky Park in Utah’s Frontier Culture, n.p. 1947, 12.
2 Ralph V. Chamberlain, The University of Utah: A History of its First Hundred Years, Salt Lake City, UT:University of Utah Press, 1960, 7.
3 University of Utah, “Deseret University: 1850-1892,” University of Utah Sesquicentennial Exhibition, 2000, <http://www.lib.utah.edu/150/01/index.html>.
4 University of Utah, “Deseret University.”
5 University of Utah, “The New U of U: 1892-1914,” University of Utah Sesquicentennial Exhibition, 2000, <http://www.lib.utah.edu/150/02/index.html>.
6 A.J. Simmonds, Pictures Past: A Centennial Celebration of Utah State University, 1988, Logan, UT: UtahState University Press, 9.
7 Simmonds, 109.
8 Simmonds, 13.
9 Alan Kent Powell, “Dry Farming in Utah,” Utah History Encyclopedia, 1994,<http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/d/DRYFARM.html>.
10 Simmonds, 109.
11 Alan Kent Powell, “Utah State University,” Utah History Encyclopedia, 1994, <http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/u/UTAHSTATEUNIVERSITY.html>.
12 University of Utah, “Becoming a Research Center: 1973-1990,” University of Utah SesquicentennialExhibition, 2000, < http://www.lib.utah.edu/150/07/index.html>.
13 Chamberlain, 538.
14 Simmonds, 83.
109
15 Simmonds, 83.
16 Simmonds, 119.
CHAPTER 91 The Enterprise Special Report, “An Educated Workforce: The Key to a Strong Economy,” 23 August 2004,
16.
2 University of Utah, “University of Utah Facts,” <http://www.utah.edu/unews/facts/index.html> (Accessed 5October 2004).
3 Paul Brinkman, “U of U: A Center of Business Activity,” The Enterprise Special Report, 23 August 2004, 1.
4 Ana Antunes, “Utah State Ranks in the Top 10 for Value,” Utah State University,<http://www.usu.edu/tuition/great-value.cfm>.
5 Shinika A. Sykes, “Universities Saluted as Engines of Economy,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 30 July 2004, B5.
6 Sykes.
7 The Enterprise Special Report, “Research at U of U Benefits Economy—And Day-to-Day Lives of Utahns,”23 August 2004, 11.
8 Jennifer J. Jones, “Funding Essential for Utah to Become a National Tech Player,” The Enterprise SpecialReport, 23 August 2004, 18.
9 Michael Young, “Zions Bank Luncheon Remarks [speech],” 1 September 2004.
10 Office of the Vice President for Research, “Discovery and Creativity: 2003 Annual Report,” University ofUtah, 2003, < http://www.research.utah.edu/annualreport.pdf>.
11 Office of the Vice President for Research.
12 The Enterprise Special Report, “Entrepreneurial Spirit Thrives Among U of U Alumni,” 23 August 2004, 14.
13 Space Dynamics Laboratory, “About SDL,” < http://www.sdl.usu.edu/about/> (Accessed 8 October 2004.)
14 Utah State University College of Education, “Message from the Interim Dean, Carol J. Strong,” <http://www.coe.usu.edu/aboutus/message.htm> (Accessed 8 October 2004).
15 Center for Persons with Disabilities, “What is the CPD?” < http://www.cpd.usu.edu/what_is_the_cpd.php>(Accessed 8 October 2004).
16 Young.
17 The Enterprise Special Report, “Technology Transfer: Turning Ideas into Profits,” 23 August 2004, 13.
18 Office of the Vice President for Research.
19 Office of the Vice President for Research.
tah boasts two public universities that rank among the elite in terms of research,
funding, and doctorates awarded. These institutions—The University of Utah and
Utah State University—are designated by the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching as “Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive.” No other
public universities or colleges in Utah have attained that ranking.
In general, a Doctoral/Research university (often called a
Research 1 university) is deeply engaged in the process
of education and discovery using research as its locus.
Doctoral/Research universities receive considerable
amounts of federal and other grant money for research,
and award a significant number of doctorates. Students
at research universities are taught by scholars who work
at the cutting edge, thus exposing the students to the
latest findings in their academic fields.
Doctoral/Research universities like the University of
Utah and Utah State University not only offer a wide
range of baccalaureate programs, but—as part of their
Carnegie qualification—also award 50 or more doctoral
degrees per year across at least 15 disciplines.
Of nearly 4,000 U.S. institutions of higher education,
only 151 public and private universities fall into the
highest category of “Doctoral/Research Universities-
Extensive.” The University of Utah and Utah State
University are among just 102 public universities in
that category nationwide.
The
University of Utah
UU
There is littledoubt, however,that the state’sfuture economicgrowth will bedetermined by ourbrains rather thanour brawn and bythe quality of ourclassrooms ratherthan the richnessof our naturalresources.
–Kelly Matthews,economist, WellsFargo Bank
